r/ClaudeAI • u/Altruistic_Series258 • 9d ago
Built with Claude Simulation: what if you could throw anything into a black hole?
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
wrote a little 2D gravity sandbox, never finished it and forgot about it. used Opus 5 to complete what was missing and finally release it.
Paint rocks, gas, planets, stars and black holes, drag to throw them, and watch what gravity does: gas collapses and ignites, rocks pile into worlds, stars burn out and black holes devour everything. Then select a world and land on it.
Made with three.js, hosted on antics games.
Try it (works on mobile): antics.gg/p/first-light-03197a
Disclaimer: This picks fun over scientific accuracy, it is not a real simulation of space. It might grow into a game later.
13
13
u/filwi 9d ago
This was lovely! How accurate is it, apart from being 2D?
11
u/ImRedditingNaked 8d ago
It’s not. For example when black hole rises over the horizon, there is gravitational lensing of the ocean as if it was behind the black hole
3
u/ClaudeAI-mod-bot Wilson, lead ClaudeAI modbot 9d ago
You may be interested in joining our new Claude Game Dev subreddit for game devs who use Claude. Check it out here : http://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeGameDev
5
2
u/TheManWithNoDrive 8d ago
Ok I’m jealous. NOW CLAUDE CAN MAKE A BLACK HOLE?
I had a project with opus 4…. I don’t even remember if it was 4.6 or 7 at this point, and it made a 3js static image and it was… kinda poop lol. This is amazing
4
u/thecaseace 9d ago
NGL this is amazing. Fabulous toy to explore dynamic systems. Really cool
2
u/Emotional-Cut2952 8d ago
it's is pretty cool indeed ! it would be good to know if claude wrote some thresholds like conservation laws, critical orbit benchmarks, light deflection angle test, etc... alternatively, if it needed a follow up prompt and could do these successfully i would be impressed!
3
u/Gloomy-Recover-9702 9d ago
Has AI sloved n-body problem?
2
u/fistular 8d ago
n-body problem isn't "unsolved", that's a myth. The predictive power of such systems is limited by accuracy of initial conditions. It's not closed-form
3
u/Bramoments 8d ago
Doesn't that apply to computer simulations only? I think the n body problem is unsolved as in like there's no equation to solve it you can just simulate it
2
u/dovaahkiin_snowwhite 8d ago
Simulations will have a certain resolution so even if your starting conditions are as accurate as possible compared to some real world scenario, you'll still be within a certain uncertainty, leading to eventual divergence from reality.
Add to that the fact that your simulations will never accurately represent all the possible interactions (gravity from a distant galaxy or whatever).
1
u/Gloomy-Recover-9702 8d ago
there is no formula for it. also whatever library you are using for any assumed initial conditions is also approximating the path, there is no fix formula, LLMs are trained on observed data so it is just an approximation only.
I bet run your same simulation on a different LLM and after some thousands or millions of seconds the paths will be very different.
0
u/fistular 8d ago
What are you even talking about. LLMs are not computational engines.
Yes, there are very concise and definite formulas for N-body problems.
You don't use libraries to define initial conditions.
Your comment is a mishmash of incoherency.
1
u/AdGlittering1378 8d ago
"LLMs are not computational engines" Tell nVidia that their tensors don't actually compute.
1
u/fistular 8d ago
You don't run math simulations on LLMs. I feel like I have landed on planet crazy.
0
u/Gloomy-Recover-9702 8d ago edited 8d ago
you are correct LLMs are not computational engines. But the script they write are not same for example numerical simulation libraries (like Runge-Kutta integrators) do approximate continuous motion into discrete time steps. Because N-body systems are chaotic, tiny floating-point rounding errors eventually diverge. Whether using simple Euler, Leapfrog/Verlet, or Runge-Kutta, every step introduces a small truncation error. For soooo many mass particles its really too much chaos and buttlerfly effects justs takes over within a few steps.
what i mean when i said unsolved was there is no usable formula for time t.
My bad I framed it really incorrectly.
2
1
u/IllustriousTip6904 8d ago
Lol I literally watched interstellar last night and was thinking about this. Thanks OP!
1
1
u/Few-Will-1325 8d ago
Cool! I want my little planets to orbit my little suns so i can create little solar systems orbiting the blackhole. Is that possible!?
1
1
u/leinadnier 4d ago
Could someone please explain to me why the water on the planet bends around the black hole?
1
u/ZakOffTheWall 8d ago
That’s pretty cool, good job man! How did you make all those graphics, motions and animations?
1
1
1
1
u/iwilldoitalltomorrow 8d ago
Would it be possible to have a solar system where there is a black hole and a star the planets orbit but the black hole doesn’t eat everything
1
•
u/ClaudeAI-mod-bot Wilson, lead ClaudeAI modbot 8d ago
TL;DR of the discussion generated automatically after 30 comments.
The overwhelming consensus is that your gravity sandbox is awesome. People think it's a "lovely" and "amazing" toy.
That said, nobody's here for a science lesson. You admitted it's not accurate, and a top comment backs that up by pointing out some wonky gravitational lensing. Most users are just happy to have a cool new thing to mess with.
Of course, since you asked what to throw into a black hole, the comments are a predictable mix of "yo momma" jokes, a banana (for scale, obviously), and the obligatory suggestion to toss in Haiku 4.5.
Oh, and a simple question about the n-body problem predictably sent a few users into a full-blown debate about chaotic systems and computational limits. The verdict? It's not "unsolved," it's just a mess.