Something Big Is Warping Our Outer Solar System (futurity.org)

schwit1 quotes Futurity: The plane of our solar system is warped in the outer reaches of the Kuiper Belt, suggesting the presence of an unknown Mars-to-Earth-mass planetary object far beyond Pluto -- but much closer than Planet Nine. An unknown, unseen "planetary mass object" may lurk in the outer reaches of our solar system, according to new research on the orbits of minor planets.

The object would be different from -- and much closer than -- the so-called Planet Nine, a planet whose existence has yet to be confirmed... "The most likely explanation for our results is that there is some unseen mass," says Kat Volk, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Arizona's Lunar and Planetary Laboratory and lead author of the study in the Astronomical Journal. "According to our calculations, something as massive as Mars would be needed to cause the warp that we measured."

Comments

Spock

[Anonymous Coward]

"Captain, that is definitely a Klingon warp signature."

Greekgeek :-)

Don't panic...

[93 Escort Wagon]

But it's probably V'Ger.

Re:Don't panic...

[Mashiki]

It's a breach in the Immaterium. Prepare for the warp storms, pray that the god-emperor will see us through safely.

Super-massive

[PopeRatzo]

The plane of our solar system is warped in the outer reaches of the Kuiper Belt, suggesting the presence of an unknown Mars-to-Earth-mass planetary object

I figured out what's warping the solar system:

http://static.deathandtaxesmag...

Re:Super-massive

[Tablizer]

Bigly fake moon! So sad.

Re:Super-massive

[abmw]

I cant unsee that you .......dammit you

inb4 "brown planet"

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a kook who'll be commenting soon enough quoting Sitchin and his horseshit. Yeah, I know, there'll be PLENTY of those idiots.

(go ahead, mark me flamebait. They can't unbutthurt you)

Re:inb4 "brown planet"

[Anonymous Coward]

Zecharia Sitchin was a hugely influential man who changed the way that many people view human life, human nature, and our role in the cosmos.

1. The ancient Mesopotamian gods were actually real, only they were not actually gods. They were alien beings. Lacking the language to discuss extraterrestrial life, the ancients simply referred to them as “gods.”

2. There is another planet in our solar system which is presently undiscovered by modern scientists. It follows a slow elliptical orbit somewhere beyond Neptune, and crosses into the inner solar system ever 3,600 years or so. This planet may be referred to as Marduk or Planet Nibiru.

3. A collision between Nibiru and Tiamat (another hypothesized planet which no longer exists—if it ever did) created the Earth as well as the asteroid belt and the comets. This is the “twelfth planet” (the sun and moon are counted along with Pluto).

4. Nibiru is home to a race of extraterrestrials. These are the Anunnaki of Sumerian lore, and may also be the Nephilim as referenced in Genesis.

5. The Anunnaki visited earth during the times of the ancient Sumerians. Searching for gold to sustain their homeworld, they needed workers to help them mine it. For this purpose, they genetically engineered a slave race—humans. This corresponds with the Mesopotamian story involving Enki and Enlil.

6. Human civilization was for a time overseen entirely by alien forces. Human kings were appointed however to serve as intermediaries. Eventually however conflict set in between the Anunnaki themselves. The “evil wind” written about in the Lament for Ur is actually nuclear weapon fallout.

7. The Great Flood as discussed in Judeo-Christian and Mesopotamian lore was actually caused by Nibiru the last time it came close to Earth.

The next time Nibiru returns, it may again cause global devastation. This could take the form of natural disaster and/or the return of our alien overlords.

Re: inb4 "brown planet"

[murdocj]

You mean that they got the Antarctica gate, flew it to a black hole and then dialed THAT gate from Nibiru in order to freeze Nibiru in an area of time dialation, don't you?

Re: inb4 "brown planet"

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually because Earth is flat, the CO2 is a lot lighter, so we can just dig giant holes, the CO2 will fill these holes. That's why we use HAARP to make sure when we spray chemtrails the air is ionized in such a way that the full color spectrum is visible (for reference search "rainbow conspiracy" on YouTube) !!!

Re: inb4 "brown planet"

[Jesus H Rolle]

So the Annunaki are on the "Pluto is a planet" side of the debate.

Re: inb4 "brown planet"

[bn-7bc]

Ok I'll bite, for the sake of argument, if the earth is falt, ghow come you see the top of a ship first wehn out at sea? Would it not make sence that you would see the whole shp (above the watreline) at once if we where all on the seame flat surface?

Re:inb4 "brown planet"

[Maritz]

When you make the bible sound credible, you know it's time to look up a psychiatrist.

Not again!

[Telephone Sanitizer]

We only just knocked the last "Planet Nine" theory and now we've got ANOTHER ONE?!

See:
https://medium.com/starts-with...

Re:Not again!

[Anonymous Coward]

The planets, they go all the way to eleven!!

Re: Not again!

[Anonymous Coward]

As if there were a righty science to compare it to. Lol

Re: Not again!

[murdocj]

righty science is "god waved a magic wand, poof, we don't need no stinking cause and effect"

Re: Not again!

[R3d M3rcury]

God made it.

Re:Not again!

[thegarbz]

Starts with a bang never knocked anything with his tabloid space gibberish.

Re:Not again!

[geekmux]

We only just knocked the last "Planet Nine" theory and now we've got ANOTHER ONE?!

See: https://medium.com/starts-with...

(A excerpt from our not-so-distant past...)

"You know, I think there are other objects besides our Sun and Moon out there..."

"Oh, what a load of shit. Everyone knows our world is flat, and we are the most important world. Even our Sun rotates around us."

Sometimes I wonder how many more times we'll find ourselves to be dead wrong when speaking about our solar system. From the dawn of time (brought to you by the Sun Chariot), we've certainly proven we have a rather ridiculous ability to not be right.

Re:Not again!

[Maritz]

Lefty science: Conclude, biased proof, fail.

It only took you six words to prove that you're a fucking mong. Congrats on your efficiency.

Re: Not again!

[Maritz]

You forgot "gays are bad". Oh, and "fun is bad".

Re:Not again!

[Maritz]

Yeah? You think Jupiter will turn out not to really be there or something? How fucking wrong can we be at this point?

Re:Not again!

[RockDoctor]

Strange, but I was swapping messages with Konstantin just yesterday and he's of the opinion that the evidence is moderately stronger than this time last year. Which is how I read Friday's (or was it Thursday?) paper on the subject too. Planet Nine (sense : Batygin-Brown 2016) is still pretty firm. 3 to 4 sigma.

Regardless of which , with this proposed "planet" being around 1xMars mass, it's also around 0.1xEarth mass and 0.01xP9(BB2016). Literally, it and it's effects would fit in the error bars of the P9(BB2016) parameters. Both could be correct simultaneously.

But, if this newly proposed planet were to exist with the described parameters, then we've already found plenty of considerably dimmer dwarf planets in comparable orbital parameters, which raises the question of why it hasn't been seen yet.

Ethan StartsWithABang knows his science perfectly well, and seems to have found a balance between advertising revenue from clickbait and keeping his sanity and dignity. Since I loathe the interface of Medium, and it never works with advertising and scripts disabled, I don't know this particular page, but if I were you, I'd read it at least three times to check what he actually says, rather than what you want to hear said.

Must be the Deathstar

[gweihir]

The Empire obviously decided to park it here and then forgot all about it...

Mars mass object inside 100 AU?

[MichaelSmith]

If its a kuiper belt object, then it must be huge to have that much mass, because of its low density. Or it could be a rocky object, like Vesta or Mercury, but then its hard to explain how it got to be so far from the sun.

Re:Mars mass object inside 100 AU?

[sheramil]

I bet it's not so huge that some arrogant administrator will declare it's not big enough to be called a planet.

It'll have to be someone from Europe, because I just read on Slashdot that there aren't any Presidential science advisors left.

Also, didn't Arthur C Clarke call this?

Re:Mars mass object inside 100 AU?

[wildsurf]

Well no, it could have scored a near direct hit on Jupiter (or another planet), thereby becoming gravitationally captured by the Sun.

Re:Mars mass object inside 100 AU?

[MichaelSmith]

Either way its pretty unlikely. And it would have remained in an eccentric orbit. If that happened there would be evidence of it in the inner solar system.

Re:Mars mass object inside 100 AU?

[Anonymous Coward]

Either way its pretty unlikely.

Everything is pretty unlikely, but space also gives a lot of opportunities for unlikely things to happen.

Re:Mars mass object inside 100 AU?

[Agripa]

If it came from some other system it would be as likely to end up there as anywhere else.
Well, as likely as anything ending up in an orbit is I guess.

This requires a momentum transfer with another large object so it is not as likely. Without a momentum transfer, it would be in a hyperbolic orbit which leaves the system.

Re:Mars mass object inside 100 AU?

[RockDoctor]

If its a kuiper belt object, then it must be huge to have that much mass, because of its low density.

As the mass goes up, the material near the core gets compressed. Which is why, despite very similar compositions, Earth has a density of 5.51 (g/cc or tonnes/cu.m) and Mars (1/10 Earth mass) is 3.93 (same units) while the Moon (1/82 Earth mass) is 3.34.

Triton and Pluto and Charon are the furthest out bodies for which I have figures (I've really got to put some more of the KBOs into my data base) : Triton Mass = 1/279 MassEarth, density 2.06 ; Pluto 1/455 and 1.83 ; Charon 1/3927 and 1.65. So ... for a Mars-mass KBO, I'd estimate density at around 2.5 (I don't have an EquationOfState calculator for water-ices either. If someone asks a question like this several more times, I'll have to make one.) Which would give a radius of (3* mass/ (density* 4* pi))^ (1/3) = 3943 km compared to 3396 km radius for Mars and 1160 km radius for Pluto. So, it should be about 10 times as bright as Pluto at Pluto's range, and at 100AU (2.5x Pluto's semi-major axis) approaching twice the brightness of Pluto. So, why hasn't it been seen before?

Or it could be a rocky object, like Vesta or Mercury, but then its hard to explain how it got to be so far from the sun.

If it were rocky, then it would have about the same radius as Mars, and so the same reflective area, and again, it would have a comparable brightness to Pluto.

OK, I'll grant that those estimates are pretty dependent on my guesstimate for the EquationOfState for water-ice, and so the bulk density for the putative planet. But that density isn't going to be lower than Triton, and it's not going to be higher than for Mars (which would imply "rocky"), and the constraints still leave it being comparable in brightness to Pluto, within a factor of the variable albedos of known KBOs. (Hell, just look at the brightness variation imaged on Pluto and Charon!)

I don't see a problem with scattering (say) a Mars-mass rocky oligarchic core from the inner Solar System out to the Kuiper belt. Stopping it once it gets there ... a bit harder (PlantNine as envisaged by Brown-Batygin 2016 might help here!). Dynamic friction could even out it's orbit after a few billion years. I don't see this being a show-stopper.

Re:Mars mass object inside 100 AU?

[RockDoctor]

Whether it remained on an eccentric orbit depends very much on when it happened, and therefore on how many other objects there were for it to interact with. When there are a lot of objects with a range of masses, there is a statistical tendency to sow down the larger objects, and to circularise their orbits.

I agree that an extra-Solar origin would be considerably more unlikely than a within-Solar origin, but it's hard to rule out an extra-Solar origin.

Protomolecule at work.

[Walter White]

Probably the ring.

Re:Protomolecule at work.

[Ironman126]

That, or a Mass Relay.

Re:Protomolecule at work.

[Walter White]

They'll forget by the time that makes it to TV.

Pluto?

[AnonymousCoward67]

Wasnt Pluto reinstated as a planet not long ago (again)? It's a bit confusing and difficult to keep track of all those transneptunes... Dammit, I can't sleep now. Yet another one and no proper numbering.

Re:Pluto?

[I'm New Around Here]

Either Neptune has a dick or he doesn't. Stop calling him trans.

Re:Pluto?

[RockDoctor]

Wasnt Pluto reinstated as a planet not long ago (again)?

No. Alan Stern and some others from his team have made the argument again, and been soundly ignored by the rest of the planetary science community.

He's a respected worker (PI on New Horizons, for instance), so he'll get peer reviewed and published, but that doesn't mean that he'll carry the consensus with him.

I'm not a planetary scientist myself, but I do follow the field quite closely. When @plutokiller (Mike Brown, Caltech) killed Pluto, I was personally more in favour of a mechanics-based criterion (is it round, +/-10%?). But that would have made Uranus P6, Ceres P7, Neptune P8, Vesta P9, Pallas P10, Pluto P11, Chiron P12, and then the KBO discovery-factory started up with a couple of dozen more "planets" since then. If you think that's a preferable situation, then you too can make that argument.

Since then, I've read and digested Hal Levison's arguments, summarised at https://www.boulder.swri.edu/~... ; they make sense and I've decided to accept the IAU and accretion/ ejection (~="clearing) argument. Pluto is not a planet, it's a "dwarf planet", or a "small body" (there's still some argument over terminology.

Alan Stern, respected though he is, wants to have the topic of his career's study, Pluto, classified as a planet, along with the rest of the "big boys". Sorry, Alan ; no can do. Pluto has been pushed around all it's life, and will be pushed around for the rest of it's life, until the heat death of the universe.

It's Uranus

[RogueWarrior65]

Go on a diet already. Jeez!

How do they do this?

[AlanObject]

I have read articles like this for many years (I recall that the outer planets were detected before they were known this way) and have always wondered something that maybe someone here can explain.

I understand at a high level the theory behind detecting unseen objects by their fanatic effect on known bodies but just how can you make measurements that precise? How many digits of precision do you need to do the calculation? Intuitively the angles involved must be far smaller than typical mechanical tools could measure so how do they do it?

Re: How do they do this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they're really, really dark. Think about this for scale. Pluto is so far out there that the sun's light warms it only enough to melt nitrogen. It is amazingly dark. And Pluto is relatively close compared to the KBOs. Now, the KBOs are, at least the ones we've seen, very dark. They don't reflect any light. And, IIRC, they're about 7 times the distance, so roughly 2% as much light is getti to them. Then, once only a tiny fraction of the light that hits them reflects, it's still an amazingly long way back to earth, with inverse square law dominating the light dissipation. That puts us on the order of maybe a photon hitting a ten million dollar, 8 meter telescope per hour. We get more light off dust in the atmosphere. Finding them, even with Hubble, is incredibly difficult.

I'd love to build an occultation network in orbit, but that's a several billion dollar project, and the data analysis piece is probably not achievable, as they're moving holy shit fast. So, they'd be blocking distant stars for hundredths of a second. It's not an impossible problem, but it's not achievable with current technology or funding.

Next not as bad bet is to toss a telescope out past Pluto to get some more light gathered, but that is a huge, expensive project that probably isn't worth the effort. But, I hope that I'm very wrong on that.

Re:How do they do this?

[RockDoctor]

(I recall that the outer planets were detected before they were known this way)

Neptune was found this way, but that was likely coincidence. The early estimates of Uranus's mass (and the other planets, principally Jupiter's) were off by a few percent, which made Le Verrier's estimate for the location of Neptune essentially unjustifiable. But he got lucky, and Galle found the planet at the predicted position. Repeating Le Verrier's calculation with the revised Solar System geometry after the transits of Venus in the 1870s and 1880s just did not work - Neptune was again in the "wrong place". So ... there must be another perturbing planet out there, and off went Percival Lowell on his planet-hunt, which culminated in Clive Tombaugh's 1930 discovery of Pluto.

Come the space age, and actually putting objects of known mass through the solar system (the Mariner series, the Pioneers, the Voyagers) and we got direct measurements of the masses of the major planets, and that's when the initial errors in Uranus's position reduced to within observational uncertainty, and Neptune's too. Pluto, frankly, doesn't matter. The currently proposed PlantNine (Brown-Batygin2016) doesn't matter for Neptune and inwards ; neither does the Mars-ish proposed planet. Too small, too far away.

Intuitively the angles involved must be far smaller than typical mechanical tools could measure so how do they do it?

Well ... I'll give you a hint : they don't go down to the hardware store and buy a protractor. It's custom builds all the way, for professional "astrometry" work. There was a book on my shopping list for some years, which I never found time to buy or read, called "Dividing the Circle" ... here it is, of you've got the thick end of £100 and a couple of weeks of reading time to devote to it.

What do you consider "typical tools"? I work with steering oil wells, and for 30+ years people have been making their direction and inclination measurements to an accuracy of 0.1 degrees of arc (6 minutes of arc) ; we have to correct for how much a steel pipe 200mm outside and 75mm inside sags when suspended horizontally between two supported points 20m apart (the approximate size of the tools ; smaller tools, lower accuracy). This is utterly routine. For amateur telescope work, you get to within a half-degree (of arc) or so of your desired object, then start to "zoom in" using the patterns of relative star positions from your "finder chart". (Compiling those stellar atlases is a different kettle of fish ; Google for the technical publications on how the Hipparcos and Gaia satellites work for state-of-the art.) You measure positions on the sky relative to other stars ... and have to check for ones with known relative ("proper") motions compared to other stars. And every few decades, you have to buy a new set of star atlases. The standard (to amateur level ; professionals only work from online databases) work is Uranometria 2000 ; the "2000" part of the publication's name is the "epoch" to which the atlas was drawn ; the previous edition was done in 1950, the previous in 1900 ... it is literally never-ending. Until you use the databases, which can produce a star map accurate for your date and time of observing.

Re:Coast to Coast

[sheramil]

Gentle reminder: X-day is in THREE DAY'S TIME, people. Praise "Bob"!

I have MY saucer ticket. Do you have yours?

Oh No It Is

[oldgraybeard]

Nemesis!!

Nemesis (Issac Asimov)

Re:Oh No It Is

[oldgraybeard]

Wow after reading the plot summary, I think I got the wrong book ;) lol Sorry

Re:Oh No It Is

[oldgraybeard]

Ok, me bad, went back to my old books and it was NightFall that I recalled. I just replaced all the suns setting every 2000 years for a Rogue Planet ;) causing the chaos.

So much for my recall after 15 years ;)

Nightfall (Issac Asimov)

Re:How do they do this? Good question

[charliemerritt03]

I hope someone answers this as I've wondered exactly the same. Like just how far "out of expected location" would Neptune be after an orbit. It is the scales that confuse.

Black Hole?

[duke_cheetah2003]

That we cannot see it... maybe it's a small black hole? Or some other lesser stellar remnant that's burnt out, but not massive enough to be a full scale black hole. The suggestion it's quite massive, yet we haven't found it... I dunno! Maybe some time in the distant past, this system had two stars. Singular star systems are supposedly less common than binaries.

TLDR; Just speculative rambling.

Re:Black Hole?

[religionofpeas]

That we cannot see it... maybe it's a small black hole?

It's really far away, and brightness drops with 4th power of distance, so even a regular planet-sized object would be very hard to see. It's not that massive either, only estimated to have the mass of Mars, so that's a relatively small planet.

Re:Black Hole?

[RockDoctor]

Second power of distance.

Re:Black Hole?

[RockDoctor]

There is no such thing an a "full-scale black hole" (and it's implied "half-scale" and "double scale" black holes. If there is enough mass in a small enough volume that the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light in a vacuum, then it's a black hole. It's binary condition - black-hole or not-black-hole ; no intemediates (and as far as we know, no superlatives).

Maybe some time in the distant past, this system had two stars. Singular star systems are supposedly less common than binaries.

If it was a star, then it had nuclear fusion, and we'd have seen it while trying to figure out how to crawl out of the oceans and breathe air. If it was too small to have nuclear fusion, then ... well, that's when it gets pretty tricky, because all sorts of complicated effects like cloud formation complicate the loss of heat from such a "brown dwarf", or "planet". some theorists are arguing over whether such an object could be seen in near--IR or far-IR, or what instrument designs might see it ; while others are searching with existing technology instead of trying to decide which new technologies might be needed to observe it.

In the realm of stars, mass is everything. If it's smaller than the Sun, it'll have a lower temperature and use it's fuel more slowly, living longer. The brightness (and fuel-use, and lifetime) depends quite steeply on the mass. If it's larger than the Sun, it'll be brighter than the Sun ; it's not brighter than the Sun, therefore it's smaller than the Sun. Considerably smaller.

Or some other lesser stellar remnant that's burnt out,

Considering the lifetime issues just discussed, that could not be an object that was born at the same time as the Sun. Which means it must have been captured into orbit around the Sun, after the formation of the Sun and it's co-existing planets. It's is very hard to do that at all, and models of the capture process eject pretty much all of the planets. We're here ; therefore that didn't happen. (A much smaller object than a star - a planet like Neptune, for example - might be captured, but even so it's hard to see how that could have happened without throwing everything smaller than Saturn out of the Solar System. We're here; that almost certainly didn't happen.)

The universe is, at this scale, simple than you think. Simpler than Hollywood likes, that's for certain. Simpler than Discovery Channel producers like too.

Re:Black Hole?

[DarthVain]

Meh. Just call it Dark Matter and be done with it...

More seriously, though I am unsure of how reasonable it is, perhaps it is a close agglomeration of belt objects working in concert gravitationally. Even within the belt most objects, probably particularly distant ones are quite far apart relatively speaking, most space is exactly that. However if there was some event in the distant past, or even some unknown solar mechanic that might glom many of these objects close enough together that as a whole have enough gravitational pull to have their exertion noticed, yet at the same time be distant enough, and not "solid" enough to really be detected by conventional means...

Re:Black Hole?

[david_thornley]

The sunlight falling on the object goes down with the square of the distance to the Sun, and what we get of the sunlight goes down with the square of the distance back here. For objects that far away, distance to Earth and the Sun is about the same, and the amount of reflected light we get from it does go down with the fourth power of the distance.

Re:Black Hole?

[RockDoctor]

But the distance the light has travelled has doubled. And the light doesn't know about what is going to happen to it, before it happens. You don't have one rule for photons in free space and a different rule for photons which are going to encounter a perpendicular mirror.

It gets significantly more complicated when one or more of your mirror, source, or receiver is travelling at a significant fraction of c.

Re:How do they do this? Good question

[Anonymous Coward]

The scale is exactly what lets you detect the issue. The orbital time in days for Neptune is 60,200 days. Sixty Thousand days. Its orbital velocity is 5.43 km/sec. even a very TINY change to that speed over that many days will put it far out of the expected location and that is what we detect.

Re:How do they do this? Good question

[thygate]

tl;dr; errors accumulate rapidly over time.

I've finally figured out American politics...

[knorthern knight]

The Democrats are a conspiracy to convince people to vote Republican

The Republicans are a conspiracy to convince people to vote Democrat

Re: I've finally figured out American politics...

[PoopJuggler]

What have the Republicans given us?

And we thought we are done with epicycles...

[mapkinase]

... when Kuiper belt objects started to kick in.

Astromers

[CanadianMacFan]

I wish astronomers would stop pulling these shitty theories out of Uranus all of the time.

Re:Angles

[laughingskeptic]

First thing: You don't use angles, you use 3 vectors. Angles are horrible at maintaining precision compared to 3 vectors. On the Earth, double precision latitude, longitude has a limit of 0.1m but double precision 3 vectors has a limit of just over 0.00000000056m.

Eddies

[laughingskeptic]

I'm betting on eddies in the Kuiper belt. Both observed effects don't have to be from a single mass and can be from distributed masses that have an effective center of mass. You always wind up with eddies in a hydrodynamic simulations and it is a bad assumption that the origins of the solar system was non-chaotic.

Re:Eddies

[RockDoctor]

You always wind up with eddies in a hydrodynamic simulations

Yes. Also in reality.

and it is a bad assumption that the origins of the solar system was non-chaotic.

Why do you believe that planetary origin modellers don't include chaos in their models. After all, they do used thousands of processor years of computer time to do exactly that. Can you give me an Arxiv (i.e. open) link to these hydrodynamic papers that don't include chaos. You do realise that they run ensembles of these models precisely to search for chaotic effects and to understand the limits of that chaos.

How much mass, and how tightly spiked a mass-distribution function are you proposing? And what is the dynamic lifetime of that distribution of particles before they're either dispersed by orbital noise or collapse into a single body? (I'll give you a hint : it's been tried ; such accumulations disperse over periods of a few hundreds of orbits, or they collapse. They don't persist for significant fractions of the age of the Solar system. People have done, uhh, hydrodynamical simulations.)

Re:Eddies

[SandWyrm]

Why do you believe that planetary origin modellers don't include chaos in their models.

Why do you assume they do? Computer models are an extension of the always-flawed thought processes of the humans who make them. If the humans don't (or won't) think of something, it won't be in the models the computers are crunching. See every climate change simulation that doesn't take our Sun's periodic cycles into account. Or which hasn't considered the short and long-term effects of the BP oil spill on action of the Gulf Stream.

ALL simulations are, by necessity, simplifications of a problem and its parameters. We can't precisely model everything because we don't understand reality precisely, and even if we could, the processing power required would exceed that of every device on earth combined. So we simplify. We use abstractions. We guess at what's important. And then we see if what the models predict can be proven. Given a problem with any real level of complexity, we're almost certain to get something very wrong in the underlying structure of the model.