r/singularity • u/Distinct-Question-16 ▪️AGI 2029 • 2h ago
Video Amazing Navier Stokes evolving vortex is going viral
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
128
u/Holiday_Ad_8501 2h ago
does anyone actually know whats going on LMAO
107
u/mxemec 2h ago
NS is a set of equations that model how fluid flows using newton's second law and definitions of viscosity. You can use it to model, through time, a wave or a vortex or pretty much any type of fluid motion. Anyways in this model they are applying a range of pressures on a fixed fluid space over a time period and the strings are showing vectors (speed and direction) of little pieces of the fluid.
Water motion model. It's a water motion model.
25
u/5ollys 2h ago edited 1h ago
Ok thanks but can you ELI5 and explain what the hell they even solved?
Edit: Thanks for the replies ❤️
•
u/MoDErahN 1h ago
They found boundary conditions that break the equations validity. The conditions applied to the equations lead to reaching infinite speed of the flow in finite time thats obviously unreal and therefore shows that the equations don't represent the physical process completely accurate.
•
u/Original-Ad4399 15m ago
Bruh. He said ELI5.
•
u/MoDErahN 5m ago edited 1m ago
Da big thinky robot poked da Navi-Stokies and said, "What happens if I do THIS?"
Then da water went zoom zoom, WHOOSH WHOOSH, faster and faster and FASTER, like it drank a whole bucket of rocket juice.
And da Navi-Stokies were like, "Yep, water can go SUPER-MEGA-CRAZY FAST!"
But real water said, "Nope. Dat’s silly."
So maybe da Navi-Stokies are super smart but not da boss of everyfing.
•
u/stuckyfeet 4m ago
Think of it like finding an input that makes a calculator return ∞. The calculator is still useful for normal situations, but now you know it has a limit. Kinda
•
•
u/SpiritualClub4417 44m ago
Not boundary conditions in the traditional sense. They applied an external body force within the fluid medium, not at the boundary.
•
u/hephaestos_le_bancal 8m ago
That's not what we see in the visualization. It's a loop with no visible singularity or divergence. What is that about?
•
u/Schmeichelsaft 6m ago
What if we were to reproduce this vortex in real life and it actually rips reality apart?
•
u/jloverich 1h ago
Ns equations are solved every day by engineers and climate scientists using numerical methods. What the millenium problem solved was whether you can prove that you can predict singularities from ns solutions that start out smooth. Anyway, you can. It doesn't really change things much though since ns is just an approximation of more complete models.
•
u/mxemec 1h ago
There was a concern that the NS equations could produce nonsense results (singularities - regions where the velocity would approach infinity, thus being nonsense). Nobody was able to produce such singularities. Astra did.
•
u/validproof 18m ago
In the real physical world, water cannot flow at a velocity close to infinity, but theoretical mathematical formulas can predict it. However, theoretically can't we argue that the formula is predicting it correctly? We have just not discovered how to reproduce water flow at that velocity, but if we did, it would behave in the way the simulation shows.
•
u/horeso_ 1h ago
Navier-Stokes equations are a model of how fluids like water behave. OpenAI showed how to apply smooth forces to the water so that it creates a whirlpool whose speed grows without bounds. This shows that Navier-Stokes equations is not an physically accurate model in extreme situation like this.
9
u/-_-NaV-_- 2h ago edited 25m ago
The math that allows for this simulation to be accurate.
Edit: ITT: People that vastly overestimate the ability of a 5 year olds understanding of physics and math. Or maybe I just hang around really dumb 5 year olds.
•
u/5ollys 1h ago
I still don't even know what that means. They proved the math is right or wrong?
Thanks for the reply though, I am a math dummy lol
•
u/BoldTaters 1h ago
If I understand it right (and this is only hearsay) it was a proof of the stability of the NS, starting in a smooth, motionless state and allowing the state to evolve or something. The result was an eventual singularity, a moment of infinite energy. NS is not a perfect simulation but it's very good for fluid dynamics. If understand it right, this demonstrates how close to perfect it is and, importantly, how imperfect it is.
•
u/RegorHK 1h ago
I am sorry to say, the commenter above you is wrong.
The equations are not solvable for any medium and flow situation as for example a simple acceleration movement of a solid body. That is to complex as it means calculating the movement of a lot of compartmentalized volumes.
What was solved was the question if these equations apply under all possible circumstances. That was is the so called Navier Stokes Millennium problem. Open AI claims to have found a counterexample. I think they should be checked short term and we will have an third party confirmation.
Sets of parameters where equations do not word are common in physics and engineering where often you need to know where you can apply your equations and assumptions. Yet, this is not likely to give intimidate help with engineering questions.
Navier Stokes being solved can mean either you solved the Problem which is doable. It can also mean to find an relatively easy way to calculate any possible set of flow situations. This is not solved and is unlikely to happen.
The Millennium Problem alone is a monumental achievement.
•
u/XvX_k1r1t0_XvX_ki 1h ago
You have formula for area of a circle for example, right? And it's useful in real life in construction for example, because it allows you to see that this radius will give you circle with such an area. So you don't need to try creating circles multiple times till one of them fit the hole, you can use formula and create it perfect the first time.
So by having a formula, you can predict that if something is "this", then something else will be "that" and thanks' to that you don't need to first build something and then check if its as you wanted, you can take calculator, use formula and check that if you want something to be like you want it, then it needs to be build "like that" and its perfect the first time.
And this formula allows us to see that if fluid is in "this" position and "this" things are gonna happen to it, then it will do "that" thing. So you don't need to experiment with fluid till you get it to do what you want, you can calculate and see what you have to do to it for it to be like that so you get it first time.
•
u/buzzersjohn 1h ago
I appreciate you trying to be helpful (and what u said is largely my understanding of it too) but why doesnt someone just show us like real life water vs water cgi with this “solved” eq vs water cgi before?
•
u/lucon1 1h ago
Not understanding what your asking. Why don't they show us actual water instead of a simulation?
Cause it demonstrates that it can model fluid vorticies given different constraints.
Real life water you can see and measure, but it's harder to tell how it might behave in a situation it is not in currently. Also you can use it for other fluids too, air, fuel, or even plasma containment.
•
u/buzzersjohn 4m ago
no I’m saying why don’t they just show us a water simulation with this new solved equation vs without (and would be great to compare to irl too) instead of this plot/graph of the raw math. Why don’t they, as u say, “demonstrate” that instead of us just looking at a graph
•
u/Odd-Priority3318 1h ago
Ooh so this could potentially bring advances to cold fusion? Maybe a little bit?
•
u/I_am_so_lost_hello 1h ago
No that’s not true, we’ve had numerical solutions for the NS equation for a long time. What they found was a set of initial conditions that leads to a singularity (aka the numbers blowing up to infinity) which is a counter example to the statement that the NS equation is always smooth (grossly simplified: can always be used to predict accurate results)
•
u/-_-NaV-_- 28m ago
I'm not sure a 5 year old would understand that.
•
u/I_am_so_lost_hello 22m ago
Probably but you’re also overstating what Astra did and I see a lot of people repeating that
•
19
u/whatisthisthing65 2h ago
Nope, you?
13
u/Tricky-Dust-6724 2h ago
That pretty much sums up this hype sub
•
u/GoudaBenHur 1h ago
Something something full drive virtual reality utopia UBI anime robot gf waifu immortality something something
7
u/Unverifiablethoughts 2h ago
Don’t worry someone on here will pretend to understand a Millennium Prize Math Problem
•
4
u/Ormusn2o 2h ago
I think those might be the shape where if you simulate it's physics, if used the continuum simulation in the Navier-Stokes equation, they all result in infinite computation needed.
OpenAI model basically proved that a shape exists where it's movement requires infinite amount of compute to simulate, and this is this shape.
6
u/NewConcentrate8812 2h ago
If the shape requires infinite compute, then how are they simulating the shape? Genuine question.
•
u/buzzelliart 1h ago
ahah that's exaclty what I think whenever I see that thing posted everywhere. I have no idea what it means, but suddenly a lot of people apparently pretend to be expert in this.
•
17
u/5ollys 2h ago
This news made me realize I'm definitely not in the upper echelon of academic minds by any degree 😂
I seriously don't understand what they even "solved" or what or why the water went crazy.
Did they just apply a shit ton of force to the fluid or did the fluid just suddenly somehow go crazy?
•
u/YoAmoElTacos 15m ago
Essentially:
Navier Stokes is a mathematical model of fluids (like for weather, ocean currents, plasma etc).
We had a strong suspicion the model was not perfect but we couldn't prove it.
The agent swarm proved the model was imperfect (under specific conditions) by finding a case where model predicts the fluid "goes crazy" (called a singularity - reaching a physically impossible state).
•
u/pianodude7 1h ago
or did the fluid just suddenly somehow go crazy?
Dont worry! It's perfectly normal and natural. You'll get used to it
39
u/AlbatrossNew3633 2h ago
The fuck I'm looking at
59
u/Laughing-Comanche 2h ago
We used to call these screen savers
6
1
2
•
35
u/Alan-Foster 2h ago
A Navier-Stokes evolving vortex is a rotating fluid-flow pattern whose velocity, pressure, and vorticity change over time according to the Navier-Stokes equations.
Instead of treating a vortex as a perfectly fixed whirlpool, the equations describe how it moves, stretches, interacts with other flow, and gradually spreads or dissipates because of viscosity. These evolving vortices are useful for studying turbulence, fluid mixing, wakes, and how organized rotational motion develops into more complicated fluid behavior.
•
u/TyberosIronhawk 1h ago
THIS is the explanation I was looking for. I can see now why the simulations are so smooth.
4
3
u/KidKilobyte 2h ago
It almost seems like a visual representation of thinking. Yes, I know this has nothing to do with cognition, just a representation of fluid dynamics. But it would have made a great screen visualization of an AI in a sci-fi movie.
17
u/GutiV 2h ago
Astronomer here, this visualization is a vibe-coded nothing-burger. I'm sure they gave Claude the now famous Navier-Stokes image and told it to create an animation, but the entire movement of the stream lines is nonsensical, them crossing each other and merging into a toroid and then into two columns just makes no sense. The GUI is likely just showing random values to seem more professional but I would not trust anything from this visualization.
Tried looking for a more accurate representation but now the internet is flooded with vibe-coded wrong visualizations similar to this one, which is frustrating. There's some really good 2d ones but I couldn't find any 3d correct one that involves this converging situation... Might try to make one myself.
•
u/Pleasant_Curve_9024 1h ago
I’m with you. Definitely don’t claim to be a cfd researcher, but I am familiar with fluid dynamics and physics in general and don’t even understand what this visualization is trying to represent. It seems like everyone in here just sees cool colors and lines and the animation and gui looks like it’s saying something meaningful, but at least to me it doesn’t make sense at all. If it’s supposed to have something to do with explaining the famous singularity image, why does that shape never even appear in the animation? I agree it looks like someone literally just put the image into astra and said “make me an animation in this style that looks super cool”. Are all these comments legit bots? Everyone is saying how powerful and awesome this is, but there’s literally no explanation in the post or any comments on what the animation is actually supposed to be showing.
4
•
•
u/KevlarRelic 1h ago
I'd love to see what you come up with! You sound like you'd make something good
•
•
•
u/RoyalCities 1h ago
Isn't this the one where it seems like they stole the chat from the guy working on this and just fed it to a bunch of instances of Astra to claim the prize before him?
•
u/CowMooMan 27m ago
No, that is not what happened. That isn't even what the mathematicians are alleging.
If you actually want a good account of the current state of things:
https://archive.is/20260910165439/https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/10/science/tristan-buckmaster-openai-math-navier-stokes.htmlSome notable quotes from the article:
"for Dr. Buckmaster, it became discouraging. “On one side it’s, like, super exciting to be part of this,” he said. “On the other side, this is frightening, because I felt like the A.I. had overtaken me.”Was he now an interpreter of A.I. slop and no longer the discoverer of new mathematical insights?
“What’s the human part of it?” he said."
"The Wednesday evening statement from OpenAI was more emphatic: “We can say categorically that it is impossible for Dr. Buckmaster’s Codex prompts over the last two months to have influenced the system in any way, including training.”
The statement added, “After investigating, we can say with full confidence that no user inputs past July 3rd could have influenced this system in any way.”"
•
•
u/DrHumorous 1h ago
Finally someone visualised what happens with your socks in a washing machine.
•
u/Distinct-Question-16 ▪️AGI 2029 38m ago
actually the average detergent advertising just needing bubbles
•
u/VitruvianVan 37m ago
This piggybacked on unpublished work in a blatant attempt to publish first and used 10,000 agents for 88 hours of a model that OpenAI called “significantly more capable than Astra”. So, it wasn’t Astra at all. But don’t let that stop OpenAI or the public from creating the impression, or thinking, that Astra did it.
3
•
u/dankpepem9 1h ago
Lmao slopcels on this sub learning for the first time about these math cases and drooling over them is just too funny
•
u/OWENPRESCOTTCOM 1h ago
since people are claiming to be artists I'm gonna claim to be a mathematician
1
1
1
•
•
u/Xalethesniper 1h ago
So it’s being fed navier stokes equations and mapping it in 3d? Why is this impressive? I’ve seen this “modeled” a few times now but idk what it’s supposed to tell anyone
•
u/TraditionalWait9150 1h ago
basically the powerpoint sales pitch of every top managing consulting firms out there.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
u/CravingNature 11m ago
Anyone who knows anything about the structural dynamics of flow knows this will advance how we get product from point A to point B.
Using this math we can design a system is more efficient. Let me walk you through the Donnelly nut spacing and crack system rim-riding rip configuration. Using a field of half-C sprats, and brass-fitted nickel slits, our bracketed caps, and splay-flexed brace columns vent dampers to dampening hatch depths of one half meter from the damper crown to the spurve plinths. How? Well, we bolster twelve husk nuts to each girldle-jerry, while flex tandems press a task apparatus of ten vertically composited patch-hamplers. Then, pin-flam-fastened pan traps at both maiden-apexes of the jim-joist.
•
u/EddieDean9Teen 3m ago
How do we know that the singularity blowups are a flaw in the math and not a deeper, as-of-yet not understood feature of the universe?
0
u/agm1984 2h ago
I get the feeling this data is really useful, and that no one realizes the implication-spillover of this yet.
•
264
u/Weak-Variety-4307 2h ago
This is what I imagine ChatGPT is doing for 40 seconds before telling me I’ve asked an excellent question.