Already I'm on alert, as the first words you see (below picture) is (((Hebrew University))). Perhaps we should take a quick look at the validity of this article with a little healthy skepticism ... > However, in reality, three-body equations became much more difficult to solve. Ummm, the forces are merely a summation of vector quantities. You can do it with 50 bodies if you want to. In this case, you'll get three equations for the three displacement variables of your choice. You'd have to set a datum (point of zero measurement) so the equations would all be relative to that location. > When two (or three bodies of different sizes and distances) orbit a center point, it's easy to calculate their movements using Newton's laws of motion. However, if all three objects are of a comparable size and distance from the center point, a power struggle develops and the whole system is thrown into chaos. When chaos happens, it becomes impossible to track the bodies' movements using regular math. Enter the three-body problem. Some correct things in this statement, as the first bit matches what I said above (in different language). It seems they are talking about everything rotating around a center point, which would be the momentary center of gravity (a *literal* form of weighted average, where in fact the term comes from). This point can move over time, so how does one pin point that spot? I'm assuming this is what they mean by "a power struggle happens" if the three bodies are similar in size, but never exact, so there'd be some drift. Theoretically, if they were all the same size this point wouldn't move, but with other gravity outside the three bodies you'd never have stability. Perhaps this is what they mean by "chaos." Imagine a broom standing upright is prone to this kind of chaos (if it's perfectly standing which direction it falls is a crapshoot), but if the broom is instead hanging by one end it's stable. It seems as though there are some extra fancy wording here, but not sure perhaps I should go to the actual article itself (next part this is mentioned) to see further? Anyway, we don't typically "personify" objects in scientific papers so I'll leave that up to the (((creative writing))) of the author. > Their findings were published in the latest edition of Nature. So, you have a paper to tell us about a paper. This is how rumors are started. :) >Instead of accepting the systems' chaotic behavior as an obstacle, ... You don't have to if you instead model the system from another stationary point. Sure, it's complicated as all hell due to Coriolis forces (forces induced by axis rotating, with another axis rotating, and so on), and it's hard to find an analytical solution. Kanes method could be used to simplify things a bit. So, if you do this you're stuck with not getting an exact solution and would have to use a computer ... oh wait, what's this next part? > ... the researchers used traditional mathematics to predict the planets' movements. "When we compared our predictions to *computer-generated models* of their actual movements, we found a high degree of accuracy," shared Stone. So, they can't set up the Kanes equations because they'd need a computer, but used a computer generated model and have a high degree of accuracy ... accuracy compared to what? It almost looks like they'ed have to use a statistical mechanics (like they do for kinetics of many bodies) model and run some kind of monte-carlo simulation. So, they'd say the final solution would be an interval estimate with a % confidence error range ... leading into the next paragraph we see > While the researchers stress that their findings do not represent an exact solution to the three-body problem, statistical solutions are still extremely helpful in that they allow physicists to visualize complicated processes. OK, so wow. You used a computer and since computers are faster this year, somehow you guys get to win the big discovery? Brute force computing was used to get a visualization of the answer provided as a statistical interval estimate and somehow you "cracked the problem"? > "Take three black holes that are orbiting one another. Their orbits will necessarily become unstable and even after one of them gets kicked out, we're still very interested in the relationship between the surviving black holes," explained Stone. This ability to predict new orbits is critical to our understanding of how these—and any three-body problem survivors—will behave in a newly-stable situation. So, you created a simulation that shows a theoretical idea of how black holes (another theoretical idea) could theoretically obtain stable orbit if a theoretical scenario where one of the black holes somehow, theoretically, is ejected from the system? We can all verify this one right? Oh, we can't? I guess that settles who wins the next Nobel prize then. Keep in mind, I don't know anything per se, just picking apart the language. There might be some BS here, or perhaps I'm just not getting it. Not that it hasn't happened 6 gorillian times before.