That said, using this method to discover new periodic solutions of the three-body system is a very neat application, which deserves applause!
Actually, I made the first comment after I checked the second author's earlier paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.0130 where they essentially made the claim about inventing "CNS" as the first-ever reliable technique for long-term solutions of dynamical systems, without referencing any of the earlier work I mentioned above.
However, I just checked the actual text of this new article on the three-body problem (through sci-hub) and there the authors do cite the earlier work I mentioned above, giving proper attribution to others for the basic ideas behind what they call "CNS"! So all is actually well, and the peer review presumably did work (or the authors found out about the earlier work even before writing the new paper). It is just the press release that is misleading, as usual.
To answer your question, I'm not really familiar with the research on the N-body problem, so I can't say why or whether no one tried looking for periodic solutions in this way before. Perhaps no one actually thought of it, or they didn't try since they didn't expect to find anything, or they didn't have the computational resources, or they just couldn't figure out the details of how to do it (which the present authors did, and deserve credit for). Again, I was not trying to downplay the significance of this work, and finding new applications of existing methods (and making even tiny improvements along the way) is how science progresses. It also happens all the time that methods get rediscovered/reinvented independently.
From a personal recommendation elsewhere:
Pros:
- the premise is good
- many of the plot twists are good or brilliant
- many problems described are obvious in hindsight, but something you would never think about
Cons:
- Writing is uneven. Some parts you sail through, some parts make you physically cringe
- Many (too many) parts are "here's a scientific theory I learned about, let me give you a brief Wikipedia-style description. (Contrast with Blindsight where explanation of theories used is done in the appendix to the book, and is an interesting read on its own)
- No person in the history of this world has ever spoken like characters in the book. Dialogs are just people explaining things to each other
- Some things are introduced "just because". Otherwise the crises in the book couldn't be solved (e.g. it's assumed that the book talks about now and suddenly there are advanced nanomaterials and working hibernation)
All in all:
It's a very solid "hard" science fiction book which could be absolutely brilliant. But it's greatness is greatly reduced by the language and structure.
So? Doesn't sound that different from 90% of classic sci-fi, especially Asimov.
>- No person in the history of this world has ever spoken like characters in the book. Dialogs are just people explaining things to each other
Ditto.
You can't transmit information faster than light using quantum entanglement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#Quantum_mech...
Really??
https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.5777
It seems like in the late 80s and early 90s this topic was very hot, then became a fad. You can find many books and papers that all have basically the same content (Lorenz/Henon attractors, logistic map, Mandelbrot set). I think it underwent a name change to "complexity science" during the 90s and 00s. I'm not in academia, but I do try to follow the topic because it is truly fascinating and IMO more accessible than quantum or relativity physics because many of the systems involved can be easily programmed/visualized with basic computers.
Funny thing is, it can not be opened, because of the 19th national congress. All .edu.cn second-level domain were shutdown for "security reasons"
The scholarpedia article is a good meta-reference:http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Three_body_problem
The very simplest version is called the Euler problem. Two fixed masses and a third moving in the "dipole field". All the solutions can be explicitly determined (although only in terms of e.g. Jacobi elliptic functions and other elliptics). There's a book "Integrable Systems in Celestial Mechanics" by Mathuna.
I recently added the Euler problem to my iOS app ThreeBody: https://appadvice.com/app/threebody-lite/951920756
Some day I'll get around to adding these 600 solutions...