0:07 Civilization 1 destroyed due to passing too close to a star. 0:26 Civilization 2 forms, long stable era 0:30 brief chaotic era, civilization 2 survives through dehydration. New stable era begins. 0:39 Civilization 2 is destroyed by passing too close to a star. 0:40 New stable era. Civilization 3 begins. 0:50 Civilization 3 is destroyed by tri-solar day. 0:51-1:37 Prolonged chaotic era 1:38 Trisolaris ejected to edge of solar system. Ice age renders civilization impossible for centuries. Would you like to keep playing?
That’s fucking horrifying, to be a living thing in that kind of system. It must taken those people millions of years to reach what we reached in 10,000 years due to all the resets. My heart goes out to whoever lives in those systems, even though it’s more likely than not that their life forms wouldn’t have the time to evolve into intelligent beings in those environments.
This timeline makes no sense. This entire simulation covers a few decades or centuries at best. There would be no time for a single civilization to develop before the system comes apart. Each orbit you see is an actual orbit, not a representation of thousands of orbits.
@@centrossect001 Well duh but this is meant to be representative of the 3 body game from the books so I need to destroy and rebuild at least one civilization. Besides we don’t know how long each orbit actually takes, so it might be much longer than an earth year.
I love how a star and the planet gets flung out at the end. It explains why 3 star systems are exceedingly rare, because after enough time passes, one of them would very likely end up ejected!
Yeah, perhaps... except these simulations don't seem to start in an orderly fashion, as real star systems do. Star systems form from an amalgamation of stellar gases in a disk configuration. This means 3 things: the stars formed would all be on the same plane and thus orbit in relatively equal degrees of eccentricity; the most massive star or the first one to reach a big enough size would become the center of the 3-body system and lead to a stable planet-like configuration for the other stars that would only change as the mass of the stars change over their lives (but probably never to the extreme shown in this simulation); and finally there would be barycenters between the 2 orbiting bodies that would serve as a center of orbit for the outside star. Essentially, 3-body systems (like Alpha Centauri IRL) are totally possible in a stable configuration given that they all form together (which I believe is how A Centauri formed). Another possibility was the capture of a rouge star, which then would account for the random nature of this simulation but would unequivocally end with the eventual collision of 2 of the stars. Obviously this has not happened and seemingly will NOT happen with Alpha Centauri, as the AB Centauri stars orbit the barycenter of the C star in a stable 79-year period.
@@mknote Yes but it's not really a 3 body system when it's stable. You'll have two stars that orbit each other in a center of mass and then the other star in the middle of it's center of mass
@@matthewcromer5399 By definition 3 body system doesn't have to be unstable. n-body systems are chaotic, because they can be both stable and unstable and we're unable to predict how they will behave. Actually we can calculate how any system will behave for any length of time, but in real life we can't get exact initial values, so our simulation will get increasingly less accurate with time.
Wow I didn't expect this repost to blow up suddenly on RU-vid Fun fact: the original video on the Chinese platform Bilibili blew up when the (Chinese) Three Body TV series aired, and now it's the same with the Netflix one :)
You could try this again, but with the three main masses looking more like suns and the planet looking more like a planet. Maybe even you could have a way to keep track of how much light the planet is getting based on it's distance to the three suns, and from that calculate when exactly it's in a stable or chaotic era.
Came here after seeing the show because I wanted to know if the planet would collide into one of the suns in real life... But it turns out the reason the system doesn't last is something different.
Planet to Red Star: "You're the only one for me." Planet to Yellow Star: "You're the only one for me." Planet to Blue Star: "You're the only one for me."
I find it a little hard to believe that the trisolarians can build 11 dimensions super computers the size of a planet folded into the size of a proton but can’t simulate their star system movements.
Building a 11-dimensional supercomputer is actually easy for them, you just have to ram a bunch of shit into a proton. However, as scientists in the book have said, the three body problem has no answer, which means it is chaotic and impossible to predict.
Well three body system is what is known as a chaotic system, which means that even THE SMALLEST deviations in the starting conditions change the results drasticaly, especially with more time passing. That means that not only would they need to measure the masses and positions of all three stars and the planet at the same time and with absurd prescision, but also account for the smallest influences on the system, like other galaxies. The model in the video works and would work the same way each time because all of these variables are set prescisely, which is almost imposible in the real world.
Hard to believe is completely different life from that needs our planet. Why don't alienforming (terraform for aliens) Mars? You don't have to fight ! P.S. Sorry for grammar mistake I'm not native English speaker
@@rjims2456 Because terraforming Mars isn't as "easy" as you might think. But, I guess in sci-fi, everything's as "easy" as it needs to be for the story.
No, it cannot be predicted for far into the future. Even a slight error/change in initial conditions will lead to a completely different outcome. It's like the weather forecast.
@@MaxArceus There could be ways to fine-tune the initial conditions using optimization. The problem is if you are living in such a system, the probability of things going well is close to zero. The best you can do is plan for the short term and make strides to leave
@@nickmartin3647 You can fine tune, but it's a fundamentally unsolvable problem. Sooner or later it will start to diverge due to the tiniest differences. But yeah, if you somehow find yourself living in such a place, you should leave.
@@MaxArceus the problem seems to be getting an accurate measurement of the initial condition for the simulation. My proposition is Instead of trying to get an accurate measurement, which is almost impossible, what if you take a rough estimate, run the simulation measure the deviation, and use that information to fine tune the initial to fit real world data. Keep doing that until the simulation can predict a useful distance to the future of which you can use that information to plan on how to leave the system.
@@nickmartin3647 That won't work, that's the whole point of the 3-body problem (the actual problem, not the show/book). It's chaos theory, same with a the 3+ part pendulum. You'd have to simulate stuff down to the atom and smaller, and even then fundamentally unknowable quantum randomness will ruin stuff for you.
The only way for life to have emerged on trisolaris would be that the solar system was stable,life developed and evolved but a third star came in and fucked up the system (I think it’s also mentioned the system had 12 planets but 11 were eaten by the stars),since life adapted to the chaotic eras,then that’s how trisolaris life survives,however a trisolaris day ripped a chunk off the planet and probably killed 95% of life only leaving microbes and a few multicellular organisms which later evolved into a new trisolariam species which made a civilization in 90 million years
RIP the trisolarans. In the scifi novel of this name, I don't see how any life could evolve there at all, much less attain such an advanced civ to overpower humanity.
It would take them maybe a million years to get to where we got to in 10,000 years due to the frequent “resets”, but as long as a handful of them survives each chaotic eras, and passes down all the knowledges into the next stable era, then there is a way. Very brutal and gruesome, but there is a way.
@@Richard68434 It's just very unlikely for anyone let alone an ecosystem to survive the the crust boiling or the atmosphere freezing in the chaos. Even if the planet doesnt get ejected.
I really like the three-body problem story but the fact that life could develop like this and that a planet or sun wouldn't crash or get flung into space like what happened in the end is wild. There's a reason you almost never see this in nature - because it's so unstable.
The solar system it's based on "Alpha Centauri " actually has 3 suns and 5 planets in real life. Though the 3rd star is smaller and more distant in real life then the show. Alpha Centauri is the closest system to our solar system
We only know for sure there are planets around Centauri and we do not know if that sun is really in a orbit, of more than half a million years, around the other 2 stars. Those stars are only in a 79 year orbit and perhaps the binary has some planets in a orbit around them. A planet orbiting 1 of the 2 stars might be possible but propably will be chaotic@@bnmbg731
Wow cette video est vraiment incroyables. Mais comment faite vous se genre de simulation ? Vous utilisez manim ou blender ou peut etre un autre logiciel mais lequel ?
After reading 3 body problem, I'm curious, if trisolarean problems could be solved with planetary drives. Yes, 3+1 body problem can't be precisely solved. But unstable systems are chaotic only when they aren't tinkered with. Instability is neccesary for system to be controllable. So, if bifurcation points are calculated precisely enough, it should be possible to drive planet towards somehow comfortable traectory along suns, using relatively affordable amounts of energy. Or, at least, to make it more predictable.
Only sustainable model would be two smaller stars locked in orbit about each other, and locked in a primary orbit around the larger star. This would be a very close orbit set, with all the planets orbiting outside the sun group. 🎉
Alpha Centauri is 2 suns orbiting each other in the middle and a third red dwarf orbiting around that There are also Lagrange point orbits and various theoretically stable orbits that have to be way to precise to actually happen
@@schadowsshade7870 The L4 and L5 Lagranges are stable... but a planet achieving the correct velocity to enter them is nearly impossible, yeah. However, there are planets with stable orbits close by to Alpha Centauri A and B... Just that no planets can have a stable orbit anywhere close outside of only having one gravitationally dominant star-- unless, of course, it's orbiting so far away that all 3 stars can be considered one mass. At that point though, Sagittarius A* would be gravitationally dominant and the planet would escape the Centauri System.
How did so many civilisations of trisolaris spawn , that would have taken millions of years, by which time , either the planet or a sun would have been ejected or collided
Here you are playing the symphony to the planet waltzing around the three suns... While Trisolarans are getting wrecked and destroyed by gravity countless times, going through stable and unstable eras...😁🤌
I think that life may not spawn on a planet that definitely did not come to orbit the systems that definitely never formed a naturally occuring 3 body orbit for any meaningful amount of time before one was ejected. Badass premise though.
Thanks. Your's is the only simulation with a planet around the 3 suns and how it would be impacted by them. It would be really cool to see the suns from the planet's point of view. Also, do you have a longer verson of the video? I'd like to know what happened to the planet and the yellow star as they went off the screen.
The planets go on to infinity after they went off and there's nothing interesting. The system fall into such state quickly regardless of the starting state (which I handcrafted) so it was very difficult to make the video longer. For planet POV I made this: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ZbktsZJGau4.html The trajectories used in that video were made up though :( I haven't figured out how to merge these simulations.
@@i-fu9yg In an ideal scenario (computer simulation) with no perturbation the motion can be predicted by Newton's laws. However in real life there're inaccuracies like relativistic effects, gravity from objects outside the system and numerical error, making long term predictions extremely difficult, which is why we often call it random.
Idk the masses of the objects but if size is any indication this is more like a 4 body simulation. I wonder if the ejection time is inversely proportional to the number of bodies with similar mass. That could explain how the trisolaran system survived for eons.
These simulations don't seem to start in an orderly fashion, as real star systems do. Star systems form from an amalgamation of stellar gases in a disk configuration. This means 3 things: the stars formed would all be on the same plane and thus orbit in relatively equal degrees of eccentricity; the most massive star or the first one to reach a big enough size would become the center of the 3-body system and lead to a stable planet-like configuration for the other stars that would only change as the mass of the stars change over their lives (but probably never to the extreme shown in this simulation); and finally there would be barycenters between the 2 orbiting bodies that would serve as a center of orbit for the outside star. Essentially, 3-body systems (like Alpha Centauri IRL) are totally possible in a stable configuration given that they all form together (which I believe is how A Centauri formed). Another possibility was the capture of a rouge star, which then would account for the random nature of this simulation but would unequivocally end with the eventual collision of 2 of the stars. Obviously this has not happened and seemingly will NOT happen with Alpha Centauri, as the AB Centauri stars orbit the barycenter of the C star in a stable 79-year period.
it’s because all of those outside influences are so far away that their influence is minimal, which is why the Alpha Centauri system can have 3 stars and even planets in a stable formation. The planets are much closer to their host star than the other stars in the system, so its orbit extremely closely approximates a standard orbit. Same with the two central stars versus Proxima Centauri on the outskirts, the latter is about 0.2 light years away, letting the two central stars have very close to a standard two body relationship. The perturbations are not nearly as dramatic as the system shown in the video, and will not be expressed in the lifetime of our star.
The issue with the premise that a super advanced race of alien beings coming to Earth because their system it's too chaotic, wouldn't occur. Naturally, a planet within a 3 body system wouldn't have enough time or chances to reach something like multicellular life. From our best understanding, life seems to be a consequence of random probabilities within nature that in the right conditions can produce complex life. A system with such chaos would reduce these probabilities from occurring in those conditions.
Three bodies orbit stably all the time. I.e. Mars, Phobos and Deimos. So is the three body problem just a problem computationally because of finite precision mathematics?
No. But we would know how to set up the initial parameters of the system (velocity, position, masses) so that the 3-body system would remain stable for as long (or as short) as we'd want. Essentially we would be able to predict the 3-body system far into the future.
It’s hard to take a system with more than 2 bodies and predict the future with any accuracy if you don’t know the EXACT positions and velocities of every object. Like, if you’re off by a millimetre then your simulation might not be able to predict something a million years out. And we don’t even know the position of every object in our solar system to within a millimetre.
No, knowing how a system behaves is different from controlling it. This is literally Control engineering in a nutshell, and to make it simpler, to control a system you need to “write it” as mathematical model, usually we can simplify complex systems, we can get away with ignoring small effects that would make the model significantly more complex, or we can make sure a system is always on a certain stability zone, all of this to get a simpler approximation of the system and control it with some method. But if the system is chaotic, well, basically your F*kd
@@fakestory1753 there are stable 3 body systems but they are all specific scenarios, basically exceptions with an hierarchy order of masses or high symetry. Ofc this is not the point of the problem when we are talking about a ``3 body problem``
Totally ignorant about the physics, but I’m wondering - Wouldn‘t there eventually be a collision, or at least some body drifting out of range eventually? Seems to me that a three body star system wouldn‘t be one for long.
Well, technically yes, but I don't think the planet's mass is accounted for (and it is relatively negligible anyway). I think the purpose was to show what a planet orbiting a 3 body star system would look like.
I’m sorry, where has this ever been observed or even divined to have happened in our universe? In other words, is this a purely speculative simulation or just a theoretical cosmological construction? I’d like to be informed about it if so.
With time, even the slightest changes in the environment (or small errors in determining relevant parameters) could have huge impact on the accuracy of the simulated system. All the suns constantly gained or lost weight and speed. So without knowing exact parameters, all predictions would be probabilistic. Meaning, the slightest change in parameter value could determine which era would you end up in, chaotic or stable. And for the longer time you try to predict, the more probable is to f up with calculations.
hey wild guess: if the san-ti were so advanced, why didn't they nuke the hell out of one of their three suns so they would turn to a 2-body system, much more stable and suitable for civilization, instead of messing with us?
@@aboycalledriri of course I fucking don't, I do marketing for a living, I'm no astro or nuclear physicist or a combination of both, and it's your fault for expecting that of me. The "idea" was: what if they were able to remove one of the suns?
It would have broken the system even more because it would not have destroyed the star, it would have made it worse. If we were to eliminate one or two stars or one sun through something like a wormhole, the planet's orbit would be completely disrupted and it would either fall out of the system or orbit the last remaining star, which would make life even more impossible.
No it’s exactly the same, that’s what’s so fascinating about three body systems, they are predictable but only if you know the exact initial conditions. So if you were around to see the creation of this system you would be able to predict it with 100% accuracy however if you were a lifeform that evolved on the planet it would be impossible for you to know the initial conditions and therefore unable to predict the movement of the system.
@@puppypaliceinteresting thing there. If it's simulated using Einstein equations and also compact objects like neutron stars or black holes, their trajectories are fundamentally unpredictable, i.e. they deviate from previous runs with the exact same parameters. Or so I read.
@@puppypalice It's not the problem that they don't know the initial condition any condition could have been "initial" for there. The problem is that it's impossible to KNOW any condition - exactly - in real life. The simulation plays out the same every time because it's digital, the speed is 1000.99999 km/h exactly for example. In reality, the same speed is 1000.99999+error and there is no minimum error small enough not to cause an opposite result (than the one without the error), making the movements unpredictable.
@@puppypalice not quite, "initial condition" does not mean that you have to be there at the beginning (what would that be? big bang?), but rather that you need to know the *exact* condition for a given time from which you want to start forecast the evolution of the trajectories. So it's more a problem of measurement accuracy of coordinates and velocities which always will have some errors
It's calles 3 body system, because the gravity of the planet is low enough for it not to count. For example the gravitational pull from the earth to the sun is extremely low, because they're so far from each other and the earth is big a magnitude lighter than the sun.
Wait, so the bugs NEVER figured this out, even when they managed to create 4 world sized super computers and then shrink them into the size of a proton?
It’s not possible. It would require calculating the effects of every atom in the Universe (because they all impact the starting positions of the planets). If any unpredictable event (like a simple spec of dust) enter their solar system over the course of a million years, then all their calculations would be off and they’d all die. Determinism =/= predictability, I suggest you read into “chaos theory” to understand more.
@@aidanm.655 "Determinism =/= predictability" is such a succinct way of putting it - thank you! This is very useful to remember even for more abstract/philosophical discussions.
It’s in-figure-outable. when their star gets picked up by a the gravitational pull of another sun, there is no way to tell how much that change is gonna take and how their star will react.
