Yes, and I don't think any planet in that position could stay in any goldie lock zone long enough to harbour life, even harder to develope life! PS, I would love to hear the story on the Wallace Primordial soup behind Neil? :)
Yes, but there are two versions of the show. Also, earth is constantly gaining and losing matter, and so are the other planets and stars. To what extent does it affect the orbit?
I'm a PhD student specializing in astrodynamics, and I really appreciate how he explains complex topics so clearly without oversimplifying. He stays true to the subject, presenting things as they really are, which I really appreciate
You're a doctoral student and you haven't noticed Neil's numerous errors? The school that gave you a Bachelor's and Master's should have its accreditation revoked.
I'm 40 and I want to thank Neil for the times he makes me feel like a 10 year old kid with a sparkle in his eyes listening to his favourite uncle talk about the world. That is like time travel :)
Agreed. Not only do they help visualize what Neil is saying, they provide "breaks" like chapters in a long conversation. Definitely should make this a regular feature.
Just every moment between the beginning of the video and the end. He’s the “yes guy.” I love the dude as an actor and person but I've yet to grasp what he adds to these science talks besides distraction. Maybe Neil just wants an entourage.
In June ‘22 I was lucky enough to meet and talk to Neil before a show in London, if anyone is wondering how he is off camera- he is the exact same as this, proper top bloke.
He’s human guys. He has A LOT going on in his head and he’s probably use to having to talk, A lot and for a long time without other people involved. He can still be a ‘top bloke’ even if he cuts you off.
Oh, Chuck understands. I can tell you're not a regular viewer of Startalk (I'm guessing this video was recommended to you because it's the third most popular video by Startalk). You should see Chuck whenever they invite an expert guest to talk about a topic. He's deeply engaged.
@@abstract5249 look at you being so protective of another grown man’s feelings 🥹🥹 I can tell you don’t know me, and I can tell you make unfounded assumptions about strangers, and I can tell you didn’t get the joke. I also know that Chuck would realize I’m poking more fun at myself than anyone. And being a regular viewer myself, he’d either laugh, or make fun of me back. Please don’t be so sensitive.
I appreciate and enjoy the "two intelligent people having an intellectually stimulating conversation" format much more than the "one smart guy banters with one comedian" format. Thank you for this. ❤
What really makes this surprising and interesting, is that two bodies is extremely simple, but add only one more and it is suddenly impossible. Like how can 2 be so easy it is basically the first problem solved in physics, but 3 is impossible? It is so unintuitive and a great introduction for beginners to some of the more complex problems in physics and thinking in new ways.
Tyson is an idiot for saying that. Is he so hyped up on his own farts that he's saying something is impossible, just because he lacks the knowledge and skills to understand it?
I find that super interesting too. The answer is that it ultimately comes down to the fact that it is essentially impossible to really MEASURE anything down to the level of specificity that would be needed to do a real prediction. Neil mentions it but doesn’t really get into it but no matter how close you’re looking, there’s still uncertainty. Fundamentally you can never operate with complete information. You do your best, but sometimes things go crazy down the line. Yes, this is an apt metaphor for life…
Because it is impossible if you're looking at it like its gravity that's holding everything together. Frequency holds everything together and can perfectly solve those problems and 4+ bodies. Stop letting this bs out to the public
When I took computational physics in university this was one of the coding problems we did. One of our objectives was to see if we could find initial conditions such that a stable orbit could be initially achieved. I honestly had more fun just watching their trajectories though.
I get the impression Neil dgt is looking at the Jupiter interference as if the 3 bodies are on a 2 dimensional plane. Do your computations include 3 dimensional orbits?
@@spook57 It makes the problem a lot easier to understand, for sure. However, even in 3 dimensions a plot of the vectors over many orbits shows that the gravitational "tug" eventually cancels itself more or less out. If you then look at the other planets, their moons, the Kuiper Belt, etc, you find that the solar system is relatively stable for the foreseeable future.
I'm a theoretical physics graduate (experiments scare me! So I value the work of the experimentalists immensely) and my heroes of the craft were the Frenchmen of the 17- and 1800s. Lagrange, Laplace, Fourier, Poisson, Cauchy, Galois and Poincaré. Even Napoleon was a mathematician! Their work is sublime. Nice show case of "the Newton of France (Laplace)"
Nice list. D'Alembert should be in there. What do you think of Tyson's claim that Newton could have easily done Laplace's work in an afternoon? But that Newton just stopped when he ceded his brilliance to God? Earlier French giants are Descartes and Fermat. Fermat should get some credit for helping develop the so called Cartesian coordinates. And I believe Fermat deserves more credit than Newton when it comes to developing differential calculus. Pascal and Mersenne were also interesting French mathematicians.
If Neil were enthusiastic about science he wouldn't botch basic physics equations. You mistake dramatic vocal inflection and hand movement for love of science.
I once read a book on Chaos Mathematics, because I was bored and I’m a nerd. Learning what I understood from the book was basically this: You can calculate the probability of a multi-faceted system but you cannot calculate all probabilities. That’s why a meteor is scary because we have high speed objects in our solar system threatening our lives. We can predict where they would be to a degree but we could never predict its location. Edit: I should add the words, until it's too late.
when it comes to commets and asteroids etc, the sun is so massive and the commet/asteroid + earth or other planets so small, that pretty much all comments fall into two body setups and asteroids do too with a few in meta stabe lagrange point orbits.
What's interesting about this is that the underlining gravitational relationships between objects in space is simple but the systems of objects are complex naturally. As with all things in nature we see the results but looking into what is going on gets pretty deep fast. Look at any science, it's a never ending quest. There are always questions. I think that's wonderful.
i just discovered these lil 10-15 min videos, and whatever you're paying your editor, keep them happy, these are so DELIGHTFUL, and fun! wish i had this in grade school
Chuck is THE best cohost; he’s definitely an intelligent person, and he knows when to go there and when not. IN. ADDITION! He has learned so much through these many episodes. I hope it never ends
So funny, I'm a physics tutor at my local community College. Yesterday my boss asked me, "hey your a physics guy, have you seen 3 body?" I told her I have not, but I'll watch a science video on it. And who better to talk about it than my man, Dr. Tyson ❤
I finished binge watching the 3 body problem series. Now I can’t stop watching physics videos. I’ve learned more about the solar system and sir Issac newton in 2 weeks than I ever did in grade school. Next I’ll be brushing up on my calculus for Season 2!
I have been a fan of both these men..my whole life.ive waited (1986-0yrs old. ) 38 years for this interview. I just now found it. I'm so happy I found this. ❤
I’ve known about Laplace’s ‘I’ve no need of that hypothesis " forever. This is the first time I’ve been made aware of its connection to Newton’s God of the gap solution . It makes more sense now. Thank you !
In other vids Tyson claims that Newton just stopped when he ceded his brilliance to God. That Laplace's perturbation theory is a simple extension of calculus that Newton could have done in an afternoon if he hadn't had God on the brain. Which is revisionist history. Newton did not stop. He invested a great deal of time and effort on attempting to model n-body systems. In particular he returned again and again to the problem of modeling the 3-body system of the earth moon and sun. As did Euler. And Lagrange. And d'Alembert. Modeling n-body systems was a very popular challenge for the mathematicians of Newton's time and the following decades. Laplace built on all their efforts. His five volume Mécanique Céleste was the culmination of a century of effort from five of the greatest mathematicians that ever lived. And yet Tyson says it's a simple extension of calculus that Newton could have done in an afternoon. I had thought it was common knowledge how fiendishly difficult it was to model motion of bodies in an n-body system. This "astrophysicist" should not have made it past Physics 101.
I love that these two are still doing their thing, and I hope we get to continue watching them educate and entertain the both young and young at heart for many years to come.
8:00 Neil knows so much that he neglected to mention one important part about the divergence of the solution. The problem with chaotic systems is not that the later behavior changes allot with small change in initial condition, but rather that the later behavior can land anywhere within a large range of possible states. In other words it is not just the case that if you change initial condition by 1 the end state changes by 1000000 and if you change initial condition by a 2 the end state changes by 2000000; but rather that in those 2 cases a change to initial condition by any number between 0 and 2 can result in any possible end state change from 0 to 2000000 in an unpredictable manner.
Just to pause on Dr. Tyson's statement that we are "modeling chaos." The beautiful thing about science is that once we can explain it, it's no longer chaos :)
*watched 3 Body Problem....based upon the title alone we started watching this thinking it was gonna be an in depth take on the calculus and any new scientific discoveries...we were wrong in our assumption but still pleasantly surprised...can't wait for the conclusion.
Well, with spoiler alerts... It was all about the problem. The plan "they" had, at least. They just wanted the chaotic minds from Earth to show them how they do maths, to see if they could solve it. Then at some point they realised the chaotic minds will undoubtedly turn hostile, no matter what they did when they arrive. Unfortunately, they were already decades into their one-way trip to meet their trip to meet us chaos maths "geniuses". So, they declared war. Because that is apparently what a non-chaotic mind will do as it doesn't know any other way to respond. Since it is fiction, we ignore all the obvious plot holes along the way. Like, if they can lie about their appearance, why couldn't they lie about their intentions? Still a pretty good story, methinks.
@@TheRealDuckofDeath They cant lie about their intentions because of their transparent communications, humans had to teach them about lying but at that point it was already to late.
@@benjaminmountain6064 he definitely has a flair for the dramatic, but he is brilliant and entertaining. It’s how he’s been able to be so successful as an advocate for science.
Neil your sidekick is annoying man.He is unintelligent guy. Neil please get rid of him. We are here to listen to you man. Your sidekick is a dumb annoying guy. Sorry.
I'm not nearly as smart or educated, but I try to be that dad... Minus letting my 4 year old throw eggs on the floor, I don't care what experiment that is, he can figure it out with other items that don't make such a mess...
You're too intelligent for this bs. If the third objekt is very small you can neglect it? And you have an easy solvable 2 body problem? Also neglect the other planets and their moons. And everything is: Easy peasy. Come on.
Me too! Tyson with his burly charm hooked us into playing Mr. Nice and saying "Yeah yeah." over and over. But I learned a little something about gravity.
I can notice the change to your shows 'format' and really appreciate the sacrifice and humility. The strategy is working. Good job for all those hard conversations. ;)
Question for Chuck: Do you get a backgrounder first on anything discussed on StarTalk, or do you approach each topic cold like most of the audience does? Really enjoyed this one!
Mr Tyson are one of the few persons on this planet that explains the "Three-Body Problem" so that anyone (like no other) can and will understand it's complexity. Very well spoken.
I think he missed an essential part. Why chaos (high sensitivity to initial conditions) means we cannot predict the evolution of a system over a long enough time frame. There are two reasons, one requires explaining the imprecision of numerical methods, so I understand that he didn't so this one. The other is because of imprecision in measurement and because we're not taking everything into account, which I find very intuitive.
@@anotherlover6954What are you talking about? Neil deGrasse Tyson got his PhD in 1991. Most of the speakers on numberphile also have PhDs. That doesn't mean that you need a PhD to achieve things, but they don't exactly provide evidence to the contrary.
I feel like this cannot be stressed enough: The problem here is that the "solution" is chaotic, it's not that the behaviour cannot be computed/calculated or by all practical means "solved". It's just that there is no NICE solution and that initial values matter a lot. So for instance, you can perfectly numerically simulate the behaviour of the entire solar system to predict the position of each object in like 10000 (or N) years provided you have enough infomation regarding current masses and positions. The system is still deterministic! it's not something like quantum mechanics where we literally can only predict probabilities. UPDATE: Ok, after reading the comments I realize that this being cahotic implies more than just "oh you just need to throw more computation at it". In order to predict the behavior of a chaotic system you need arbitrary precision for *each step of the simulation* and so the errors start compounding. This means that even using the most advanced computers that we could possibly build it wouldn't be enough to accurately predict the movement of bodies! (at least not with 100.00% certainity and of course specially when there are many bodies that influence each others equally) (butterfly effect).
You can't simulate numerically perfectly either. Your time steps can't be infinitely small, error will accumulate and as it is chaotic your solution can change a lot.
@@hoantran8654 No. Orbital systems are NOT always intrinsically unstable. Some are, and those particular orbits decay sooner or later, leaving those which are not prone to decay. At the present age of the universe, we don't tend to observe many of these systems, because they've already decayed. We ourselves happen to inhabit a planetary system which has remained stable for several billion years, which is several hundred million orbits on average. If it were inherently unstable, odds are that it would have decayed by now. But instead it happens to be one of those systems which are inherently stable. Mathematically you can think of it as a gradient which is concave up. An unstable system is concave down.
As usual, Tyson does a terrible job of answering the question and leaves people more confused than they were before. No, the issue isn't that 3 bodies move chaotically, it's that there is no arithmetic solution to the problem. In other words, there's no equation you can write were you plug in starting values and a time and get out positions and velocities for the 3 bodies. THAT is the 3 body problem, not anything about chaotic movement.
Aha, you've mathematically solved the famous "Parent Madness Problem". As I'm sure you know, the PMP is the conundrum of why raising 2 kids is a pain, but raising 3 or more kids is complete chaos and drives you nuts. So, now we know. We still go nuts, but at least we know.
This isn’t a complex idea conceptually I’m sure he math would be complex but just the idea of it I thought they did a good job explaining in the show so I don’t understand what they’re doing this follow up
Newton and Leibniz built on the efforts of Fermat, Kepler, Descartes, Wallis, Barrow, Cavalieri and others. It is more accurate to say calculus was built by many people over many years.
I have been Patiently and Diligently checking the Star Talk channel every day since I watched 3 Body Problem waiting to hear NDT’s take on it! I’m excited to hear this
If i had these guys for my high school science class, I’d actually look forward to going to school every day. There would be something else besides just band and lunch to keep me interested 🤷🏽😃
Waaaay late to the conversation, but a student of mine wondered if the liquid core of earth acts as a reset of Jupiter's brief pull. Kinda like how pool water eventually settles after you jump in.
It isn't exactly a "brief" pull. It is continual, but with an oscillating pattern. So, when earth is close to Jupiter, the pull is strong. When earth is far from Jupiter, the pull is weak. However, the "weak" pull is over a far greater time-frame. If you flatten out the system into a 2D model (for simplicity and easier understanding) and then plot the vectors of the "tug" from Jupiter over many complete cycles, you can see a pattern where the vectors mostly cancel each other out. In fact, this applies, more or less, for every body in our solar system. Our entire system is relatively stable -- i.e. it is stable and will remain that way for thousands or millions of millennia. However, there is an intriguing problem. Because of how everything is moving, we can model the observed movements and compare them to the model of how they should move based on the laws of gravity and compare the two results. These two models do not quite line up. This has led to the "Planet 9" theory: A hypothesis that there is a massive, undiscovered planet 20 times farther away than Neptune that is on a highly elliptical orbit.
Physics Professors and High School Physics teachers take note and learn from Neil and Chuck. Making Science even half this engaging and understandable would create a whole generation of kids passionate about this incredible discipline! Totally love you guys - you have a brilliant chemistry and it’s such a joy to watch you. Who knew that delving into big questions like how our Universe works, what’s our place in the universe and what are the fundamental building blocks of the Universe could be such fun ❤
Just because something would be fun and exciting does not mean someone is going to learn it because not everybody gets excited about the same things nor do they like the same things. It is like the saying if you love what you do you will never work a day in your life, people who like a subject will learn that subject at a faster rate than those who disliked a subject.
@@grimmspectrum1547 I think you missed their point. She's talking about the entery point of a subject. 3d modeling is a good example. So many kids want to make their own game characters and what not. Many even try. But the complexity and the headache of looking for the right content is a huge blocking point. If you find someone like Niel in the field you have interest in. It can bridge that gap and turn an interest into a life long hobby.
@@grimmspectrum1547What they are really saying, is that if the content is delivered in a hopelessly boring manner, you'll lose a far greater percentage of the audience right out the gate. This is especially true with many youths having short attention spans. They end up not being interested from not being engaged by the teacher, as opposed to the subject matter itself. My HS Chem teacher, was boring, went off on tangents off subject and said some borderline racist things. However much Chem he actually taught probably got tuned out by most of the class, myself included. No interest was developed or nurtured, yet other forms of media have made it more interesting in my adult life. I'm a professional computer nerd, that does enjoy learning. A better teacher may have opened my eyes to another pathway. I remember my chem teacher for all the wrongs reasons. Can't recall a single music teacher, and in spite of having limited interest in music as kid I started learning guitar myself as an adult. I'll probably never be a proper musician, but anything I've decided to try and become proficient at is self taught.
@@blkspade23It is extremely difficult to explain complex topics at the high school level. Go too slow and you will bore the future engineers who need to understand the content at a much higher level than does an average person.
Damn, I love chuck. These two are lovely. Great job to the producers/editors/film crew. Love this show so much. What a treasure and a priviledge to have this info for free.
nah just cause it like throwing down a hot dog next to a dry aged tomohawk and a some waygu degrassi kid even being thought of in the same echelon as the other two is an offense to the world on multiple fronts, trash music and a dirtier case he sitting on than r kelly lol how you even disgrace kendrick and cole like that
Ultimately it feels like it's a similar thing to like, predicting the weather. We can get a few days of reasonable accuracy but at some point it gets really chaotic really fast.
Why are there so few people who just want to learn all the facts about life space science etc and then share it like Neil. Your one of the greatest people I know of in my lifetime. Thanks for sharing with us Neil.
@@AngryAmphibian EXACTLY. He's honestly a hack. Don't get me wrong, he's smart and educated, but he clearly stopped learning a long time ago and forgot a lot of what he did learn. The man completely ignores Leibniz and thinks Newton invented calculus lmfao.
@@No-cg9kj When it comes to calculus both Leibniz and Newton built on the work of Fermat, Kepler, Descartes, Barrow, Gregory, Wallis et al. It's more accurate to say calculus was built by many people over many years. In another talk Tyson claims that Newton could have easily done Laplace's work in an afternoon. However Newton supposedly just stopped when he ceded his brilliance to God. Newton did not just stop. He returned again and again to the n-body problem. Tyson's claim is obviously false from the get go. Not only Newton but Euler, Lagrange and d'Alembert. The n-body problem was a popular challenge in the time of Newton and the following decades. Laplace built on the work of all these men and invested a great deal of his own time and effort. His perturbation theory is the culmination of a century of effort from five of the greatest mathematicians that ever lived. And yet Tyson claims as indisputable fact that perturbation theory is a simple extension of calculus that Newton could have whipped out in an afternoon. Tyson has said he wouldn't want Newton in his lab because those who believe in intelligent design don't search for answers. Well, Tyson's not searching for answers. This pseudo scientist isn't doing research. Newton, on the other hand... Tyson is not fit to polish Newton's shoes.
@@AngryAmphibian hes not a scientist anymore niether does he claim to be,hes a science communicator that has to dumb things done to the publics level and at that hes good we learn alot,its like a football player retiring and becoming a pundit or analyst,hes not in the thick of the action anymore on the pitch or lab,hes just talking about it now,u wouldnt expect a football player to still play as well as he did ten years ago before he retired
@@simonpeyton-n3h Except Neil "sat on the bench" during his football years, to use your metaphor. He's never done any substantial research. And he doesn't just dumb things down. He gets stuff completely wrong. He's a "scientist" who doesn't do research and an "educator" who misinforms.
That it's "pop science", (a very fair descriptor) is somewhat of a problem though. No better spokesman for "pop science" exists though so, another fair point. Albeit, obligatory.
@@BlaspheBeastbut it's probably less of a problem than no science. Unless everyone begins to think they're experts and there are nation-wide votes on crucial physics problems (I lack the imagination and knowledge to come up with a specific).
The predictive model is very sensitive to initial conditions as explained by Neil but also what catches up to you is that averages of forces over a time slice will also have some amount of imprecision and while each time slice will usually cancel out their imprecisions that is not always the case where you get streaks that cause precision to decline and that problem also grows over time as you calculate more and more slices of time where what are basically rounding errors start to skew the predictive results compared to the actual system being modelled.
Thanks so much for this vulgarisation. It really is great to make these issues understandable for people like me (who suck at Maths and the Hard Sciences). You are a great educator.
he's a fool that believes that men should compete with women, and that in 100 years we will look back at men vs womens sports as a strange oddity. He is paid to promote dark ideologies like androgynous humans.
How come a million people watched this in a day. i follow this channel from years, it used to be round about 50k or 100k at max. Never thought people will get that curious about it. Amazing. A very good sign.
After the US UFO announcements the book by Liu Cixin rose in popularity. It's a dark forest story that's been adapted into a Chinese TV series & re-adapted by Netflix in the US this year.
I wish he did see "3 Body Problem" There are other scientific ideas explored such as: Fermi Paradox; Dark Forest; syzygy (tides vs gravity); quantum entanglement; higher dimensions. exploding nukes to propel a spaceship; Alpha Centauri (as restricted 3 body, though portrayed as 3 body)
I just stumbled upon this, and I have absolutely no idea why this matters to mere mortals, seeing as things seem to remain on course, but I am SO GLAD to know about the three body problem ANYWAY. I’ll be standing the grocery store, completely forgetting the fifth thing on the shopping list I left at home, and I’ll be able to say to myself, “Ah yes! I forgot why I’m here, next to the melons, but at least I remembered the Three Body Problem!!”
Doesn't really matter if you are spiritual or not, but we are 5th dimensional beings (Like God) trapped in a 3 dimensional body. What that means is that this may not matter to us NOW, but one day we will break time travel and that will make us 4 dimensional beings, and when we learn to jump dimensions/realities, we will become 5th dimensional, at which point, ALL of this matters. The only way for us to get there is by asking these questions now, because that is how new technology is made. Now, rather or not we SHOULD develop technology to reach that point is a whole other conversation. Who knows, maybe some random guy in the grocery store is the very person that cracks the secret to time travel.
Watch the show 3 body problem and you'll understand why this would be an issue obviously not for our planet but a different one called trisolarus. Their problem becomes our problem and we have 400 years to figure something out. Sick show/ book series
For everyone interested in this story I do recommend the book over the show as it is much more rich in science and explains these Astrophysical problems beautifully!
One of the most common approaches to solving the three-body problem is numerical integration, where the equations of motion for the three bodies are solved numerically using techniques such as the Runge-Kutta method or adaptive step-size methods. While computationally intensive, this approach allows for accurate predictions over short to moderate time scales.
In cases like this, "solution" means "an algebraic function that gives the future state given the current state and length of time." When you have such a function, you can do a LOT more kinds of analyses than you can when you have to run an iterative simulation. This was especially true before we had computers. A function that doesn't need to be simulated isn't chaotic. That is, if something is chaotic, you can't produce such a function. The element of chaos is what makes it impossible. (In certain cases, provably impossible. I don't know whether the 3-body problem is provably chaotic. You can prove a system is chaotic if you can prove that the term rises exponentially with time.)
I've not come across Rung-Kutta for 50 years when it came up in my Institute of Actuaries mathematics exam. Write an Algol 60 program to solve a 4th order differential equation using a Rung-Kutta method.
Clearly Laplace was saying he didn’t need to make reference to God because his equation solved the problem without having to hypothesize that it is periodically interfered with by an outside force as Newton had said. People wishfully trying to turn it into him saying he has no need for God. It was only a burn against Newton for relying on that hypothesis rather than solving it completely.
It's pretty likely that Laplace did not believe in an Abrahamic Christian god. Whether he was a deist, an agonstic or an atheist is for scholars to debate.
I love your explanation of the three body problem, What I might add though is that the three body problem does have a general solution found by a Finnish mathematician named Sundman in the form of an infinite series, albeit, it only converges after 10^8000000 terms, so it is possible to solve, but not in a closed form nor in a useful way. Thanks for the video Dr. Tyson!
The pattern on Neil’s shirt is the same pattern I used to make one of my space themed pillowcases. It was always my second favorite of the 2 patterns I used for them. Now it is my favorite! Just so cool!
Napoleon !!! jaw drops. Like what?! You’re kidding? But you’re not kidding•• So Napoleon was somewhat of a genius or a very, very intelligent, interesting person. Understanding physics takes certain kind of mind, which is not at all common. Just Wow!! Thanks, Prof. 😁💙🌷🌱
Are you watching “3 Body Problem” on Netflix?
The books are mind-blowing!
Yes it’s super interesting I would love to see Neil talk about it if he sees the show. Either way I loved this.
Yes, and I don't think any planet in that position could stay in any goldie lock zone long enough to harbour life, even harder to develope life! PS, I would love to hear the story on the Wallace Primordial soup behind Neil? :)
Yes, but there are two versions of the show. Also, earth is constantly gaining and losing matter, and so are the other planets and stars. To what extent does it affect the orbit?
yeah its great,.
"where is your gravitational allegiance?" with no context is my new fav question to ask people
you sir are enlightened
Me, who doesn’t understand the context: “Earth forever!”
Buckminster fuller called love metaphysical gravity
@@jesusofbullets You are biased towards the Earth.
@@zeepack
I guess you could say I’m just really drawn to it.
I had a three body problem once. Luckily, I know people who discreetly take care of that sort of thing.
As jellyfishes are the only multi-organism animal,you must be 1.😁
Dinner reservation for 3
He knows a guy
“I’d like to make a dinner reservation”
Lol
I'm a PhD student specializing in astrodynamics, and I really appreciate how he explains complex topics so clearly without oversimplifying. He stays true to the subject, presenting things as they really are, which I really appreciate
You're a doctoral student and you haven't noticed Neil's numerous errors? The school that gave you a Bachelor's and Master's should have its accreditation revoked.
@@AngryAmphibianName checks out.
Greatest comment@@Diactia
Interesting, how about you name some of these errors? I’m a physicist as well, generally sounded pretty good to me
@@AngryAmphibiancan you please enlighten us
I'm 40 and I want to thank Neil for the times he makes me feel like a 10 year old kid with a sparkle in his eyes listening to his favourite uncle talk about the world. That is like time travel :)
Neil*
Neal is such a good teacher
I feel like soon after I turned 34 I got curious about everything around me. Neil's explanations are so soothing to me
Interesting typically when he talks my reaction is dude this guy is dumb. 🤪
@@OMGitsTerasu oopsie, thanks. Edited
the small animations in between are really helpful
Especially the one at 5:16
Agreed. Not only do they help visualize what Neil is saying, they provide "breaks" like chapters in a long conversation. Definitely should make this a regular feature.
@@mariomikor6330lol
They could have use tennis balls or something ;)
Yeah, I had a hard time grasping it until they showed the animations. There’s only so much you can describe with just words
Goes perfectly with the saying, "Two's company, three's a crowd".
Two's accompany, three's an adult movie
The problem=cosmic v. of the love triangle problem.Both are chaotic.
As we say. Two's Habitable, Three's mass annihilation of your planet and anything living on it.
So what is four and five then? Nine . 10 points for Uncle joke accomplished
Then what's four and five? Nine! 10 points for uncle joke now achieved
Came looking for a Netflix movie review. Was tricked into learning classical Mathematics! Damn you!😂
Funny chap!
Lol
What math did you learn? The only thing you learned was some invented history.
@@AngryAmphibianwhat invented history???? You talking about Star Wars??
I love it how Chuck sometimes says "Gotcha" but his face tells you "I don't get it" 😃
I feel him
That means he is a liar not to be trusted
I think a lot of us do that, just hoping to get back to familiar territory or to hope the next sentence ties it all together
😂😂😂
Just every moment between the beginning of the video and the end. He’s the “yes guy.” I love the dude as an actor and person but I've yet to grasp what he adds to these science talks besides distraction. Maybe Neil just wants an entourage.
In June ‘22 I was lucky enough to meet and talk to Neil before a show in London, if anyone is wondering how he is off camera- he is the exact same as this, proper top bloke.
I wasn’t.
And he talks a lot, blabs a lot, cuts you off when you’re speaking, goes off on tangents and likes hearing his voice. But ya top proper bloke.
Ask him what a woman is. You’ll hear all about why they don’t matter and why they don’t need woman only spaces
He’s human guys. He has A LOT going on in his head and he’s probably use to having to talk, A lot and for a long time without other people involved. He can still be a ‘top bloke’ even if he cuts you off.
I saw him lecture here in Vegas just two days ago, and he was excellent!
Chuck is me in my high school science classes: “right, right, uh huh, it’s the… got it yeah because of the thing - right, okay…. Ahhhh….”
While nodding yes but still not understanding it lol
Oh, Chuck understands. I can tell you're not a regular viewer of Startalk (I'm guessing this video was recommended to you because it's the third most popular video by Startalk). You should see Chuck whenever they invite an expert guest to talk about a topic. He's deeply engaged.
@@abstract5249 look at you being so protective of another grown man’s feelings 🥹🥹 I can tell you don’t know me, and I can tell you make unfounded assumptions about strangers, and I can tell you didn’t get the joke. I also know that Chuck would realize I’m poking more fun at myself than anyone. And being a regular viewer myself, he’d either laugh, or make fun of me back. Please don’t be so sensitive.
@@Masebook Triggered lol.
😂😂😂
I appreciate and enjoy the "two intelligent people having an intellectually stimulating conversation" format much more than the "one smart guy banters with one comedian" format. Thank you for this. ❤
"i had no need of that hypothesis"
Still one of the best burns in history.
Feux!!!
I'm keeping this one.
Ouch!! 😅 Epic
I am a smidge surprised that Napoleon didn’t say “and I have no need for you”
Bumper sticker material for sure
What really makes this surprising and interesting, is that two bodies is extremely simple, but add only one more and it is suddenly impossible. Like how can 2 be so easy it is basically the first problem solved in physics, but 3 is impossible? It is so unintuitive and a great introduction for beginners to some of the more complex problems in physics and thinking in new ways.
Tyson is an idiot for saying that. Is he so hyped up on his own farts that he's saying something is impossible, just because he lacks the knowledge and skills to understand it?
I find that super interesting too. The answer is that it ultimately comes down to the fact that it is essentially impossible to really MEASURE anything down to the level of specificity that would be needed to do a real prediction. Neil mentions it but doesn’t really get into it but no matter how close you’re looking, there’s still uncertainty. Fundamentally you can never operate with complete information. You do your best, but sometimes things go crazy down the line.
Yes, this is an apt metaphor for life…
Because it is impossible if you're looking at it like its gravity that's holding everything together. Frequency holds everything together and can perfectly solve those problems and 4+ bodies. Stop letting this bs out to the public
Just tells me physics is broken.
"Frequency holds everything together?" You do realize that frequency is not a force?
Restricted 3 body problem happens in the Triple star system of Centauri. Alpha Centauri A, B and proxima centauri.
How we can stop it?
A good example.
God I love the universe. There's an example of anything if you look
Yes, with proxima being hte red dwarf one.
@@KonstantinGdalevichthere's no point I'm stopping it??
The real three body problem is when aliens connect to your Bluetooth speaker and all you hear is "You are bugs".
All your bases are belong to us.
😂😂
But it says to the aliens first "ze bluetooth connection is paired suczezfulley" 😂😂
😂😂
I love how Neil LOVES explaining stuff and the other guy (I don't know his name) loves listening and agreeing. They are perfect for each other
Chuck Nice
Chuck Nice is the embodiment and representation of us in that room..
After reading this comment, I appreciate and love their relationship even more
Like Willie Tyler and Lester.
Earth Wind and Fire
When I took computational physics in university this was one of the coding problems we did. One of our objectives was to see if we could find initial conditions such that a stable orbit could be initially achieved. I honestly had more fun just watching their trajectories though.
Lagrange would be proud!
I get the impression Neil dgt is looking at the Jupiter interference as if the 3 bodies are on a 2 dimensional plane. Do your computations include 3 dimensional orbits?
Just casually dropping “when I took computational physics…” gotta be the flex of all flexes.
For a second I read "when I took constipational physics" 😂😂😂
@@spook57 It makes the problem a lot easier to understand, for sure. However, even in 3 dimensions a plot of the vectors over many orbits shows that the gravitational "tug" eventually cancels itself more or less out. If you then look at the other planets, their moons, the Kuiper Belt, etc, you find that the solar system is relatively stable for the foreseeable future.
I'm a theoretical physics graduate (experiments scare me! So I value the work of the experimentalists immensely) and my heroes of the craft were the Frenchmen of the 17- and 1800s. Lagrange, Laplace, Fourier, Poisson, Cauchy, Galois and Poincaré. Even Napoleon was a mathematician! Their work is sublime. Nice show case of "the Newton of France (Laplace)"
There's so much cool stuff from that era
So you need two side kicks like Leonard and Howard?
Nice list. D'Alembert should be in there.
What do you think of Tyson's claim that Newton could have easily done Laplace's work in an afternoon? But that Newton just stopped when he ceded his brilliance to God?
Earlier French giants are Descartes and Fermat. Fermat should get some credit for helping develop the so called Cartesian coordinates. And I believe Fermat deserves more credit than Newton when it comes to developing differential calculus.
Pascal and Mersenne were also interesting French mathematicians.
Nothing makes me love science more than watching someone who loves science talk about science
If Neil were enthusiastic about science he wouldn't botch basic physics equations.
You mistake dramatic vocal inflection and hand movement for love of science.
I once read a book on Chaos Mathematics, because I was bored and I’m a nerd. Learning what I understood from the book was basically this: You can calculate the probability of a multi-faceted system but you cannot calculate all probabilities. That’s why a meteor is scary because we have high speed objects in our solar system threatening our lives. We can predict where they would be to a degree but we could never predict its location.
Edit: I should add the words, until it's too late.
Hello. What book was it?
@@keiths41nt38 It was a while ago but I think the title was literally just Chaos or something like that.
@@keiths41nt38 I found it. It’s called Chaos by James Gleick
Which was the point of Jurassic Park, you can’t predict variables you haven’t solved for.
when it comes to commets and asteroids etc, the sun is so massive and the commet/asteroid + earth or other planets so small, that pretty much all comments fall into two body setups and asteroids do too with a few in meta stabe lagrange point orbits.
What's interesting about this is that the underlining gravitational relationships between objects in space is simple but the systems of objects are complex naturally. As with all things in nature we see the results but looking into what is going on gets pretty deep fast. Look at any science, it's a never ending quest. There are always questions. I think that's wonderful.
Nice use of the word Wonderful… full of wonder keeps pushing science further.
All I heard in my head was Christofer Walken saying, “I need more calculus.” 😂😂
post of the day
Should be top post
@@steveangello6586 Yes. So original.
I'VE GOT A FEVA!
And Val Kilmer replying "I don't need calculus, Maverick. Because I'm Batman".
i just discovered these lil 10-15 min videos, and whatever you're paying your editor, keep them happy, these are so DELIGHTFUL, and fun!
wish i had this in grade school
Credit to Chuck for listening to Neil saying tug and tugging over and over and not snickering. 😂🎉
Perturbation
& perturbation
LOL!
@IronThreads9 Agreed! Quite sophomoric.
Chuck is THE best cohost; he’s definitely an intelligent person, and he knows when to go there and when not. IN. ADDITION! He has learned so much through these many episodes. I hope it never ends
Adopting “where is my gravitational allegiance?!?” into my lexicon *immediately*
I’m drawn to this phrase too
Down with gravity! 😂
So funny, I'm a physics tutor at my local community College. Yesterday my boss asked me, "hey your a physics guy, have you seen 3 body?" I told her I have not, but I'll watch a science video on it. And who better to talk about it than my man, Dr. Tyson ❤
That's your boy!
Well than hopefully he knows that it is actually possible. 3 body problem has been solved along with many other number of body.
The liar! Your man? 😂😂😂
Make sense she’d say “your”
You're a physics tutor, and you typed: "hey, your a physics guy...". There's just no hope.
He also inadvertently described a relationship that involves 3 people lol
"I'm in love with two stars and I don't know what to do. Which way do I turn?" 😂😂😂😂😂😂
I had to scroll back to hear that again, LOL
That's such a progressive comment. I'm not showing it to my wife.
have a groupie
That's solvable, 3 stars though, there's no solution, so stick with 2
Add a third! Then go find a new planet because that’s unsustainable 🤣 spoiler alert
I can't watch Neil deGrasse Tyson now without thinking about that Key & Peele skit
🤣🤣
Which one is that
@@Has_1990
There is only one
I f***** Bill bye the science guy
You b*****
@@help4343 no its 3 of them.
@@Jaycran22
Comedy Central splits it into 3, but it's just 1 sketch
Isaac Newton solved it in a cave! With a box of apples!
Nice reference. Hahaha.
I understood that reference
I read that in that voice lol
Bro, that was Johnny Appleseed
Tony stark solve that in a cave with a box of scraps..
I finished binge watching the 3 body problem series. Now I can’t stop watching physics videos. I’ve learned more about the solar system and sir Issac newton in 2 weeks than I ever did in grade school. Next I’ll be brushing up on my calculus for Season 2!
The relative part of the problem is coming
I have been a fan of both these men..my whole life.ive waited (1986-0yrs old. ) 38 years for this interview. I just now found it. I'm so happy I found this. ❤
They have plenty video's and podcast episodes together😬 If you didn't you in for a treat
This is the most unique way I have seen anyone declare their age
Having more views than subscribers after a week shows the quality of this channel.
So if you study hard enough and devote yourself to completely understanding the subject, you can become a Master Perturbation Theorist.
Yup, and you could talk about the small tugs and their impact.
Can I get my master's in perturbation? Here I've just been doing it ad hoc. I didn't know i could get educated in it.
This thread has chauvinistic overtones
And then you can display you master perturbation prowess on a zoom business meeting
Master perturbator
I’ve known about Laplace’s ‘I’ve no need of that hypothesis " forever. This is the first time I’ve been made aware of its connection to Newton’s God of the gap solution . It makes more sense now. Thank you !
In other vids Tyson claims that Newton just stopped when he ceded his brilliance to God. That Laplace's perturbation theory is a simple extension of calculus that Newton could have done in an afternoon if he hadn't had God on the brain.
Which is revisionist history.
Newton did not stop. He invested a great deal of time and effort on attempting to model n-body systems. In particular he returned again and again to the problem of modeling the 3-body system of the earth moon and sun.
As did Euler. And Lagrange. And d'Alembert. Modeling n-body systems was a very popular challenge for the mathematicians of Newton's time and the following decades.
Laplace built on all their efforts. His five volume Mécanique Céleste was the culmination of a century of effort from five of the greatest mathematicians that ever lived.
And yet Tyson says it's a simple extension of calculus that Newton could have done in an afternoon. I had thought it was common knowledge how fiendishly difficult it was to model motion of bodies in an n-body system. This "astrophysicist" should not have made it past Physics 101.
I love that these two are still doing their thing, and I hope we get to continue watching them educate and entertain the both young and young at heart for many years to come.
I've heard this guy in *full smug* mock the idea of UFOs and E.T.
he's either a *crafted molded liar* or the dimmest smart guy out there
About 18 hogs will get rid of your 3 body problem.
How many hours tho? 🤔
Chill, brick top
😂 Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. HILARIOUS movie 😂
Take the teeth out first though right?
you dummy bruh
8:00 Neil knows so much that he neglected to mention one important part about the divergence of the solution. The problem with chaotic systems is not that the later behavior changes allot with small change in initial condition, but rather that the later behavior can land anywhere within a large range of possible states. In other words it is not just the case that if you change initial condition by 1 the end state changes by 1000000 and if you change initial condition by a 2 the end state changes by 2000000; but rather that in those 2 cases a change to initial condition by any number between 0 and 2 can result in any possible end state change from 0 to 2000000 in an unpredictable manner.
Just to pause on Dr. Tyson's statement that we are "modeling chaos." The beautiful thing about science is that once we can explain it, it's no longer chaos :)
*watched 3 Body Problem....based upon the title alone we started watching this thinking it was gonna be an in depth take on the calculus and any new scientific discoveries...we were wrong in our assumption but still pleasantly surprised...can't wait for the conclusion.
Well, with spoiler alerts...
It was all about the problem. The plan "they" had, at least. They just wanted the chaotic minds from Earth to show them how they do maths, to see if they could solve it. Then at some point they realised the chaotic minds will undoubtedly turn hostile, no matter what they did when they arrive. Unfortunately, they were already decades into their one-way trip to meet their trip to meet us chaos maths "geniuses". So, they declared war. Because that is apparently what a non-chaotic mind will do as it doesn't know any other way to respond. Since it is fiction, we ignore all the obvious plot holes along the way. Like, if they can lie about their appearance, why couldn't they lie about their intentions? Still a pretty good story, methinks.
Read the book, you won't be disappointed with the lack of delving into this problem.
Try the Chinese version on peacock! Much more in depth !
@@jgivens637 I've heard the Chinese version is a terrible low budget production with people reading from a teleprompter. 😋
@@TheRealDuckofDeath They cant lie about their intentions because of their transparent communications, humans had to teach them about lying but at that point it was already to late.
an explanation of the three body problem from one of our favourite online teacher our personal astrophysicist, thank you Neil 🥰
Not favourite enough to spell his name right, it seems.
@@Jmvars i got fidgety fingers, thank you for pointing out fixed now :)
@@Jmvars no need to be caddy.
Niel is the type of guy to wake up his entire family just to let them know he's going to bed
@@benjaminmountain6064 he definitely has a flair for the dramatic, but he is brilliant and entertaining. It’s how he’s been able to be so successful as an advocate for science.
Neil deGrasse Tyson feels like that really fun uncle who is always a pleasure to be around & always keeps you thinking 🔥
Until you ask him what "gender" means then you're TRAPPED 😅
Neil your sidekick is annoying man.He is unintelligent guy. Neil please get rid of him. We are here to listen to you man. Your sidekick is a dumb annoying guy. Sorry.
You can't be serious
Neil has a nice salary
I'm not nearly as smart or educated, but I try to be that dad... Minus letting my 4 year old throw eggs on the floor, I don't care what experiment that is, he can figure it out with other items that don't make such a mess...
I had a 3-body problem in high school. I couldn't choose so I decided to spin around both of them. it was magical.
For some reason, I can listen to this over and over again. I still don’t know what they are talking about, but I can listen over and over again!
Not random but unpredictable.
You're too intelligent for this bs. If the third objekt is very small you can neglect it? And you have an easy solvable 2 body problem? Also neglect the other planets and their moons. And everything is: Easy peasy. Come on.
Me too! Tyson with his burly charm hooked us into playing Mr. Nice and saying "Yeah yeah." over and over. But I learned a little something about gravity.
Thank you for the B-rolls, they are incredibly helpful for visualizing this, thought I have no idea about the Math behind it.
Those aren't "B-rolls," those are animations.
I can notice the change to your shows 'format' and really appreciate the sacrifice and humility. The strategy is working. Good job for all those hard conversations. ;)
The lighting is warmer and has a better feel to the show.
Dude no hate but just let him talk.
The lighting in your room there is perfect!👍
Question for Chuck: Do you get a backgrounder first on anything discussed on StarTalk, or do you approach each topic cold like most of the audience does? Really enjoyed this one!
Mr Tyson are one of the few persons on this planet that explains the "Three-Body Problem" so that anyone (like no other) can and will understand it's complexity. Very well spoken.
He's been able to bring astrophysics and quantum mechanics to the masses. Just like the folks on numberphile, we need more of them.
Shows you what you can achieve in life without a PhD.
I think he missed an essential part. Why chaos (high sensitivity to initial conditions) means we cannot predict the evolution of a system over a long enough time frame.
There are two reasons, one requires explaining the imprecision of numerical methods, so I understand that he didn't so this one. The other is because of imprecision in measurement and because we're not taking everything into account, which I find very intuitive.
@@anotherlover6954What are you talking about? Neil deGrasse Tyson got his PhD in 1991. Most of the speakers on numberphile also have PhDs.
That doesn't mean that you need a PhD to achieve things, but they don't exactly provide evidence to the contrary.
I honestly thought he was acting slightly chauvinistic
I feel like this cannot be stressed enough: The problem here is that the "solution" is chaotic, it's not that the behaviour cannot be computed/calculated or by all practical means "solved".
It's just that there is no NICE solution and that initial values matter a lot.
So for instance, you can perfectly numerically simulate the behaviour of the entire solar system to predict the position of each object in like 10000 (or N) years provided you have enough infomation regarding current masses and positions. The system is still deterministic! it's not something like quantum mechanics where we literally can only predict probabilities.
UPDATE: Ok, after reading the comments I realize that this being cahotic implies more than just "oh you just need to throw more computation at it". In order to predict the behavior of a chaotic system you need arbitrary precision for *each step of the simulation* and so the errors start compounding.
This means that even using the most advanced computers that we could possibly build it wouldn't be enough to accurately predict the movement of bodies! (at least not with 100.00% certainity and of course specially when there are many bodies that influence each others equally) (butterfly effect).
Q: How many currently solvable problems weren't at some point in the past?
A: All of them.
You can't simulate numerically perfectly either. Your time steps can't be infinitely small, error will accumulate and as it is chaotic your solution can change a lot.
@@hoantran8654
No. Orbital systems are NOT always intrinsically unstable. Some are, and those particular orbits decay sooner or later, leaving those which are not prone to decay. At the present age of the universe, we don't tend to observe many of these systems, because they've already decayed.
We ourselves happen to inhabit a planetary system which has remained stable for several billion years, which is several hundred million orbits on average. If it were inherently unstable, odds are that it would have decayed by now. But instead it happens to be one of those systems which are inherently stable. Mathematically you can think of it as a gradient which is concave up. An unstable system is concave down.
As usual, Tyson does a terrible job of answering the question and leaves people more confused than they were before. No, the issue isn't that 3 bodies move chaotically, it's that there is no arithmetic solution to the problem. In other words, there's no equation you can write were you plug in starting values and a time and get out positions and velocities for the 3 bodies. THAT is the 3 body problem, not anything about chaotic movement.
No you can't
Aha, you've mathematically solved the famous "Parent Madness Problem". As I'm sure you know, the PMP is the conundrum of why raising 2 kids is a pain, but raising 3 or more kids is complete chaos and drives you nuts. So, now we know. We still go nuts, but at least we know.
I love when people take the time to educate those of us who struggle to grasp complex topics. Thank you 🙏🏿 🙂
He doesn't know as much as he leads you to believe. I've seen him claim that women and men are biologically the same
This isn’t a complex idea conceptually
I’m sure he math would be complex but just the idea of it I thought they did a good job explaining in the show so I don’t understand what they’re doing this follow up
You’re welcome.
Yeah he's intelligent. But many a great mind have been subverted by left wing ideology.
Amen
I love Neil for how he also brings up all these side notes while explaining.
Thank you thank you thank you. I adore such conversations. Former academic, here, missing these interactions. Gotta embrace the chaos.
Hi again, Mr. Tyson. I'm 20 years older but still I'm learning as much or more than I did
"Isaac Newton solved it, my boy"
That's your man.
Terrence Howard solved this my boy
@@dgmessengerHa!
@@dgmessengerThat man couldn't solve a basic crossword problem 😂 muchless this.
bisexual carbon boy @@dgmessenger
Thanks!
Thank you!
Imagine being so smart that you invent a math
Or has the math always been there and you were just smart enough to have discovered it? 🤔😳
what else is there to do with no wifi?
Calculus was discovered, actually. 🤷🏻♂️
Newton and Leibniz built on the efforts of Fermat, Kepler, Descartes, Wallis, Barrow, Cavalieri and others.
It is more accurate to say calculus was built by many people over many years.
I’m too dumb to imagine
Can I have him explain every concept in nursing? I feel like he would explain nursing concepts better than any website or professor could
I have been Patiently and Diligently checking the Star Talk channel every day since I watched 3 Body Problem waiting to hear NDT’s take on it! I’m excited to hear this
If i had these guys for my high school science class, I’d actually look forward to going to school every day. There would be something else besides just band and lunch to keep me interested 🤷🏽😃
I Binge watched it, it was great. I was excited to see this Star Talk on the 3 body problem.
star talk is a gift from god
Read the books.
Books are better@@dragoda
9:45 - always entertaining... I'm in love with two stars 😂
Waaaay late to the conversation, but a student of mine wondered if the liquid core of earth acts as a reset of Jupiter's brief pull. Kinda like how pool water eventually settles after you jump in.
Even if that solves Earth, what about the other planets in our system that don't have a liquid core?!
Sounds like a 'them' problem.
It isn't exactly a "brief" pull. It is continual, but with an oscillating pattern. So, when earth is close to Jupiter, the pull is strong. When earth is far from Jupiter, the pull is weak. However, the "weak" pull is over a far greater time-frame. If you flatten out the system into a 2D model (for simplicity and easier understanding) and then plot the vectors of the "tug" from Jupiter over many complete cycles, you can see a pattern where the vectors mostly cancel each other out. In fact, this applies, more or less, for every body in our solar system. Our entire system is relatively stable -- i.e. it is stable and will remain that way for thousands or millions of millennia.
However, there is an intriguing problem. Because of how everything is moving, we can model the observed movements and compare them to the model of how they should move based on the laws of gravity and compare the two results. These two models do not quite line up. This has led to the "Planet 9" theory: A hypothesis that there is a massive, undiscovered planet 20 times farther away than Neptune that is on a highly elliptical orbit.
@@kittenisageekI think there is recent developments on planet 9 after a decade of silence
It sounds like your student is rather smart to think of a possible scenario like that.
Physics Professors and High School Physics teachers take note and learn from Neil and Chuck.
Making Science even half this engaging and understandable would create a whole generation of kids passionate about this incredible discipline!
Totally love you guys - you have a brilliant chemistry and it’s such a joy to watch you.
Who knew that delving into big questions like how our Universe works, what’s our place in the universe and what are the fundamental building blocks of the Universe could be such fun ❤
Just because something would be fun and exciting does not mean someone is going to learn it because not everybody gets excited about the same things nor do they like the same things. It is like the saying if you love what you do you will never work a day in your life, people who like a subject will learn that subject at a faster rate than those who disliked a subject.
@@grimmspectrum1547 I think you missed their point.
She's talking about the entery point of a subject.
3d modeling is a good example. So many kids want to make their own game characters and what not. Many even try. But the complexity and the headache of looking for the right content is a huge blocking point.
If you find someone like Niel in the field you have interest in. It can bridge that gap and turn an interest into a life long hobby.
@@grimmspectrum1547What they are really saying, is that if the content is delivered in a hopelessly boring manner, you'll lose a far greater percentage of the audience right out the gate. This is especially true with many youths having short attention spans. They end up not being interested from not being engaged by the teacher, as opposed to the subject matter itself.
My HS Chem teacher, was boring, went off on tangents off subject and said some borderline racist things. However much Chem he actually taught probably got tuned out by most of the class, myself included. No interest was developed or nurtured, yet other forms of media have made it more interesting in my adult life. I'm a professional computer nerd, that does enjoy learning. A better teacher may have opened my eyes to another pathway. I remember my chem teacher for all the wrongs reasons. Can't recall a single music teacher, and in spite of having limited interest in music as kid I started learning guitar myself as an adult. I'll probably never be a proper musician, but anything I've decided to try and become proficient at is self taught.
These discussions are well beneath the level of 100-level college physics, which I have taught for 21 years.
@@blkspade23It is extremely difficult to explain complex topics at the high school level. Go too slow and you will bore the future engineers who need to understand the content at a much higher level than does an average person.
Damn, I love chuck. These two are lovely. Great job to the producers/editors/film crew. Love this show so much. What a treasure and a priviledge to have this info for free.
Chuck sayin' "What's up Earth?" was gold.
This must be the reason why Kendrick Lamar, Drake, and J.Cole couldn't exist in harmony.😅
if only wale didn’t fall off🤦🏾♂️😂😂
nah just cause it like throwing down a hot dog next to a dry aged tomohawk and a some waygu degrassi kid even being thought of in the same echelon as the other two is an offense to the world on multiple fronts, trash music and a dirtier case he sitting on than r kelly lol how you even disgrace kendrick and cole like that
@@sammynovak1200take a break kid
Bruh just gave a master level physics class on Hip Hop! 🎓 📜
Funny 😆
Absolutely marvellous, so glad I stumbled across this (whilst searching for guitar videos!). Well done guys.
Me too!
What were your search terms?
What you learning? I'm going insane learning First Circle from Pat Metheny 😑
Same
Neil has the best shirts...love this one. Looks good on him
_"Looks Good on You Though"_ ruclips.net/video/EPC0Kn03Ork/видео.html
looks like he's gonna eat some pepperoni then ask Trevor and Corey for some smokes, lets go
He's a cosmic boogaloo boy
He looks like a famous star!
The Dr. Tyson drip
Ultimately it feels like it's a similar thing to like, predicting the weather. We can get a few days of reasonable accuracy but at some point it gets really chaotic really fast.
Why are there so few people who just want to learn all the facts about life space science etc and then share it like Neil. Your one of the greatest people I know of in my lifetime. Thanks for sharing with us Neil.
It'd be nice if he took the time to learn science and history before he shared it. So much of Neil's material is wrong.
@@AngryAmphibian EXACTLY. He's honestly a hack. Don't get me wrong, he's smart and educated, but he clearly stopped learning a long time ago and forgot a lot of what he did learn.
The man completely ignores Leibniz and thinks Newton invented calculus lmfao.
@@No-cg9kj When it comes to calculus both Leibniz and Newton built on the work of Fermat, Kepler, Descartes, Barrow, Gregory, Wallis et al. It's more accurate to say calculus was built by many people over many years.
In another talk Tyson claims that Newton could have easily done Laplace's work in an afternoon. However Newton supposedly just stopped when he ceded his brilliance to God.
Newton did not just stop. He returned again and again to the n-body problem. Tyson's claim is obviously false from the get go.
Not only Newton but Euler, Lagrange and d'Alembert. The n-body problem was a popular challenge in the time of Newton and the following decades.
Laplace built on the work of all these men and invested a great deal of his own time and effort. His perturbation theory is the culmination of a century of effort from five of the greatest mathematicians that ever lived.
And yet Tyson claims as indisputable fact that perturbation theory is a simple extension of calculus that Newton could have whipped out in an afternoon.
Tyson has said he wouldn't want Newton in his lab because those who believe in intelligent design don't search for answers.
Well, Tyson's not searching for answers. This pseudo scientist isn't doing research. Newton, on the other hand...
Tyson is not fit to polish Newton's shoes.
@@AngryAmphibian hes not a scientist anymore niether does he claim to be,hes a science communicator that has to dumb things done to the publics level and at that hes good we learn alot,its like a football player retiring and becoming a pundit or analyst,hes not in the thick of the action anymore on the pitch or lab,hes just talking about it now,u wouldnt expect a football player to still play as well as he did ten years ago before he retired
@@simonpeyton-n3h Except Neil "sat on the bench" during his football years, to use your metaphor. He's never done any substantial research.
And he doesn't just dumb things down. He gets stuff completely wrong.
He's a "scientist" who doesn't do research and an "educator" who misinforms.
This is World Class pop-science. Which we need desperately. Thank you both of you!
That it's "pop science", (a very fair descriptor) is somewhat of a problem though.
No better spokesman for "pop science" exists though so, another fair point. Albeit, obligatory.
@@BlaspheBeastbut it's probably less of a problem than no science.
Unless everyone begins to think they're experts and there are nation-wide votes on crucial physics problems (I lack the imagination and knowledge to come up with a specific).
Quick! Ask him if men can get pregnant!!
The predictive model is very sensitive to initial conditions as explained by Neil but also what catches up to you is that averages of forces over a time slice will also have some amount of imprecision and while each time slice will usually cancel out their imprecisions that is not always the case where you get streaks that cause precision to decline and that problem also grows over time as you calculate more and more slices of time where what are basically rounding errors start to skew the predictive results compared to the actual system being modelled.
The best part about Degrassi is just how well he puts things into terms that we can all understand
Thanks so much for this vulgarisation. It really is great to make these issues understandable for people like me (who suck at Maths and the Hard Sciences). You are a great educator.
he's a fool that believes that men should compete with women, and that in 100 years we will look back at men vs womens sports as a strange oddity. He is paid to promote dark ideologies like androgynous humans.
DUDE. You just taught a new meaning of that word
Exceptionally well-shot content, great audio also. Kudos
I’ve never seen this channel but man I love watching these two guys talk about the three body problem
Isaic Newton and Napoleon... What a wonderful time. 🇫🇷
How come a million people watched this in a day. i follow this channel from years, it used to be round about 50k or 100k at max. Never thought people will get that curious about it. Amazing. A very good sign.
Netflix.
the new show on netflix that's gaining a lot of popularity .
It's because of netflix show which became so popular recently called 3 body problem.
After the US UFO announcements the book by Liu Cixin rose in popularity. It's a dark forest story that's been adapted into a Chinese TV series & re-adapted by Netflix in the US this year.
That was the best three body problem explanation that I’ve ever heard!
Guys,the new intro is lovely!
People out here worrying about the 3 body system. Ngga I'm worrying about the 4th😂😂
I wish he did see "3 Body Problem" There are other scientific ideas explored such as: Fermi Paradox; Dark Forest; syzygy (tides vs gravity); quantum entanglement; higher dimensions. exploding nukes to propel a spaceship; Alpha Centauri (as restricted 3 body, though portrayed as 3 body)
Sooo light bathroom reading.
He explained the 3 body problem here...
And he has explained every one of the other things you mention in other vids...
I just stumbled upon this, and I have absolutely no idea why this matters to mere mortals, seeing as things seem to remain on course, but I am SO GLAD to know about the three body problem ANYWAY. I’ll be standing the grocery store, completely forgetting the fifth thing on the shopping list I left at home, and I’ll be able to say to myself, “Ah yes! I forgot why I’m here, next to the melons, but at least I remembered the Three Body Problem!!”
Doesn't really matter if you are spiritual or not, but we are 5th dimensional beings (Like God) trapped in a 3 dimensional body. What that means is that this may not matter to us NOW, but one day we will break time travel and that will make us 4 dimensional beings, and when we learn to jump dimensions/realities, we will become 5th dimensional, at which point, ALL of this matters. The only way for us to get there is by asking these questions now, because that is how new technology is made. Now, rather or not we SHOULD develop technology to reach that point is a whole other conversation. Who knows, maybe some random guy in the grocery store is the very person that cracks the secret to time travel.
That's funny! It's just about sending us a message -like ther aliens
aliens are political...
Watch the show 3 body problem and you'll understand why this would be an issue obviously not for our planet but a different one called trisolarus. Their problem becomes our problem and we have 400 years to figure something out. Sick show/ book series
@@x_durendal_x8693 😂
For everyone interested in this story I do recommend the book over the show as it is much more rich in science and explains these Astrophysical problems beautifully!
I"ve listened to the audiobooks...it is some of the best sci fi I have experienced since Larry Niven and Arthur C Clarke's works.
@@Bradgilliswhammyman Frederik Pohl was also a great sci-fi author based on real science.
The show has beautiful pictures of SuperKamkonde next to CERN
Or the tencent series if you don't mind subtitles
That's awesome!
The answer can be found in 1 over 137.
"A harmonic balance if you will"
One of the most common approaches to solving the three-body problem is numerical integration, where the equations of motion for the three bodies are solved numerically using techniques such as the Runge-Kutta method or adaptive step-size methods. While computationally intensive, this approach allows for accurate predictions over short to moderate time scales.
So this is how spacecrafts navigate. 2 years to Mars. Moderate time scale.
In cases like this, "solution" means "an algebraic function that gives the future state given the current state and length of time." When you have such a function, you can do a LOT more kinds of analyses than you can when you have to run an iterative simulation. This was especially true before we had computers. A function that doesn't need to be simulated isn't chaotic. That is, if something is chaotic, you can't produce such a function. The element of chaos is what makes it impossible. (In certain cases, provably impossible. I don't know whether the 3-body problem is provably chaotic. You can prove a system is chaotic if you can prove that the term rises exponentially with time.)
I've not come across Rung-Kutta for 50 years when it came up in my Institute of Actuaries mathematics exam. Write an Algol 60 program to solve a 4th order differential equation using a Rung-Kutta method.
I think I posted this in the wrong place! :doh:
@@ArneChristianRosenfeldt yes, but it's the restricted 2 or 3 body problem here, so numerical computations aren't so chaotic.
Clearly Laplace was saying he didn’t need to make reference to God because his equation solved the problem without having to hypothesize that it is periodically interfered with by an outside force as Newton had said. People wishfully trying to turn it into him saying he has no need for God. It was only a burn against Newton for relying on that hypothesis rather than solving it completely.
It's pretty likely that Laplace did not believe in an Abrahamic Christian god. Whether he was a deist, an agonstic or an atheist is for scholars to debate.
@@aarons3014 exactly, for scholars to debate who knew about him, unlike our Robby here.
I love your explanation of the three body problem, What I might add though is that the three body problem does have a general solution found by a Finnish mathematician named Sundman in the form of an infinite series, albeit, it only converges after 10^8000000 terms, so it is possible to solve, but not in a closed form nor in a useful way. Thanks for the video Dr. Tyson!
Video wasn't long enough. Could watch and listen for hours to this.
Great seeing you in Vegas this weekend Dr. Neil!!
This was great. Loved the way you two go through it together
I'm so glad this is in my algorithm!!!
The pattern on Neil’s shirt is the same pattern I used to make one of my space themed pillowcases. It was always my second favorite of the 2 patterns I used for them. Now it is my favorite! Just so cool!
So this guy is gonna fight Jake Paul. Huh.
You my guy must be less than 20 years 😅. What we call the Indomie generation in Nigeria.
Mike Tyson is the man you are confusing with NDTyson.
He may look old, but back in the day he was a mass debater
I hate the fact that many people won't understand your joke😂😂
You win the comments section. 😂😂😂
amazing comment
You two guys are so good together. It makes listening to these sorts of problems very enjoyable.
"im in love with 2 stars, I dont know what to do" 😂
The one doing all the explaining would be enough...
@@Tommy_007 you could just read instead... oh but then no one would see your negativity
Perfect visuals to help my simple mind understand, thank you!
Napoleon !!! jaw drops. Like what?! You’re kidding? But you’re not kidding•• So Napoleon was somewhat of a genius or a very, very intelligent, interesting person. Understanding physics takes certain kind of mind, which is not at all common. Just Wow!! Thanks, Prof. 😁💙🌷🌱