Can Two Snowflakes Be Identical?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 тра 2020
- No two snowflakes are exactly the same. Can that actually be true? With an extraordinary amount of snowflakes that drop in a single area, how can no two be the same? We break down what might set snowflakes apart even if it means going down to the microscopic level.
- Наука та технологія
by this logic, no two drops of water are the same. no two grains of sand, etc. I thnk its going a little beyond the original meaning
They are also completely wrong too. They said impossible but it's not, its improbable in a finite sample. In an infinate sample (aka the universe) it's quite probable infact almost certain that there are exact duplicates as there are a limited number of possible combinations of how a snowflake (grain of sand, pebble, rock, mountain, planet, etc) can form, and in the example of something as "simple" as a snowflake (compared to a far larger object for example a pebble) the odds of multiples are not as extreme.
In an infinate universe, it is entirely possible that there is/will be another planet identical to earth, with identical lifeforms, doing the same identical thing at this second as everything our earth is, at this exact moment. It's not likely, but in an infinate universe, it's possible.
The word impossible is hard to use without specific modifiers. For example if I said it's impossible for a human to fly, I would be wrong. People can fly, using machines, or by going to places were the force of gravity isn't pulling us down strong enough. Now if I said, it is "impossible for a human to fly unaided on earth at this exact point in time, providing nothing happens to alter the effects of gravity, mass, or any other known or unknown factor" I would be correct, in as far as we could prove, there may still be something I had overlooked in my specifics.
As Douglas Adam wrote "Nothing is impossible, just highly improbable."
@@cgi2002 yes it is very unlikely
But then in the end nothing can be the same either because of quantum entanglement.
Yeah this video went from fact to misinformation. Still teaches people that they are unique as hell but it's not the full truth and even lies mixed in.
Yep there explanation is so farfetched its ridiculous. (Nearly infinite? ) we know how may molecules there are in 1 mole water. 6.02e^23 . So not nearly close to infinite
I'm gonna be honest, saying 2 pretty much visually identical snowflakes are actually different because of their molecular structures is super unsatisfying, kinda like saying 2 pieces of A4 paper from one pack is different because of their respective molecular structures. With that sentiment, pretty much nothing in the universe can be the same, which makes the "no two snowflakes are the same" saying meaningless
Precisely my good sir
right
So true, I'm mean if they both have the same core frequency and aurora...then they're the freaking same💁~~~~~>💓°•○☆💕
The theme doesn't really work as constant background music, it's too distracting
yeah, terrible
I thought that as well.
I had to force myself to watch until the end because of it. It's ill-suited to begin with due to its beat. And it wasn't designed (nor modified) to loop, so every time it starts again is distractingly noticeable. And it was so loud I had to strain my ears to understand her. A painful experience all around.
This seems like a cop out. By this reasoning, no two grains of sand are the same. That may also be true, but I think when most people hear this factoid they imagine the pattern, not the actual physical composition and arrangement of molecules.
Maybe I'm alone on this, but whenever this was originally told to me in grade school it was right after a showing of the design patterns of snowflakes. So I always thought they meant "no two snowflake patterns are the same."
Appealing to composition of molecules is trivial and doesn't seem to be addressing the actual question. Are there identical snowflake patterns? I suspect so, but would like to see a video on that.
100% agree
When I think the same I'm thinking looks the same and is essentially the same size. I'm not thinking I need a electron microscope that I need to be operating at 0c just to make sure its the same and not let the flakes melt! Than after comparing the visual inspection melting them down and run them threw a GS to ensure the same molecular makeup. Going by My metric I'm certain many snowflakes are the same. ❄❄Now if you take into account every flake that has ever fallen shouldn't' you run into the infinite monkey scenario eventually? A flake from today could possibly be the same as one from last year or 20 years ago or possibly a millennia ago. This kind of hair splitting is why you cant call identical twins truly identical even though they are. . . This one ate a potato the other ate a patato.
Agreed. By this reasoning, no two *anything* is identical; the word becomes meaningless except in purely theoretical frameworks. There's a joke here about entering a spot-the-difference competition by just drawing a big circle around the picture.
This is a good channel, but I think this video missed the mark a bit.
"No two croissants are the same because the chance that every quantic particle in each one has the same momentum is basically 0."
this applies literally to every category of thing.
Identical Snowflakes? Scientist Ruins Winter For Everyone.
ua-cam.com/video/Gojddrb70N8/v-deo.html
For those missing Kyle, You can now find him at his new channel on you tube Kyle Hill. Have a great day and never stop learning.
Seems more like a justification for the phrase rather than the initial meaning.
Absolutely
Statistically improbable not scientifically impossible
Right
It’s pretty impossible dude
Technically yes but that's like saying it's scientifically improbably to quantum tunnel to China.
Just because it's highly improbable doesn't mean it's technically impossible
Daniel N yet you’ll never see it happen, ever
On 1:41 It should have said "the probability of two snowflakes beign exactly the same is nearly ZERO"
1:43 bottom text is a mistake I think? if the probability is infinite then all snowflakes would be indentical
i guess it means 1/infinity
Well, since probability can't exceed 1, it's safe to assume she meant 1/inf.
We all get what she means... she just made a mistake saying it, which what the original comment is saying
yeah I think she means infinitesimal
Also, what does "nearly infinite" mean? I get that some infinities are larger than others, but how can something be nearly infinite?
the audio isn't balanced. its louder in the right ear, please fix
I think that's just your headphones
@@satanhimself3578 no, they're right. The volume is slightly louder on the right, but most people wouldn't notice.
@@goat9295 Well now I noticed
I agree, it's driving me nuts
@@goat9295 I hear it too
If we limit "identical" to mean "Possessing the same number of water molecules in the same physical configuration" that doesn't even help much. A few years ago I did a rough estimate for a youtube comment and based on average global snowfall and how long Earth has been cool enough to allow snow to form, of all the snowflakes that have ever fallen on Earth only about 200 of them would have been identical as a high-side estimate.
Well..... That's highly unlikely
Not impossible
Mayu Jog no it’s impossible
@@marklewis383 no. It's possible
So was the center audio channel off limits? My right ear feels very smart right now, but my left one only got that upbeat music
Well... they can be identical, depending on how much you're gonna ignore. Just like everything. On molecular level no two things are exactly the same, but if you look at accuracy of "only" tenths or hundreths of a millimeter there are plenty of identical screws, gears and probably even snowflakes.
In order to say no two snowflakes are the same you would have to include every snowflake that has ever occurred anywhere in the universe throughout ALL TIME. It's untestable! And even if the odds of two being exactly alike right down to the molecular level are astronomical, if there is even single instance where they are it disproves this statement.
It's the law of really big numbers. Given infinite time and with only a finite number of variables and configurations, eventually it WILL repeat.
And the best part is that because it's untestable, talking about it isn't scientific. In order to be science, something has to be provable through observation. If we can't test it, it's not science.
EDIT: We can make theories, but they can only stay theories.
EXACTLY HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO REPEAT THIS. WTF
By this logic there is no such thing as "exact same". Bravo captain obvious
Yeah, that makes pretty much any object unique. Only atoms and other small particles can be exactly the same.
@@FF-yd4ni Yeah, it's like saying you can never punch someone in the face because your atoms never touched... like... yeah... no.
It's not the best reasoning for "no two identical snowflakes". As well if that excuse was taken seriously in the science community it would be theoretically impossible to redo experiments.
@@esbentu4783 its a science channel. Of course if you ask they would say you are never touching someone if you punch them.
@@jonathanpatry shows what you know about scientists
I always thought this phrase was dumb for two reasons.
Technically speaking, no two _anything_ that a human can see are ever perfectly identical.
Cosmetically speaking, it's very easy to spot multiple snowflakes that are all visibly the same.
First time I spotted two visually identical snowflakes as a child, I was amazed and thought I had made an amazing discovery...then I noticed that pretty much any time you _really_ look at snowflakes, you'll find more than one that look the same.
Interesting, It's Okay to be Smart featured this topic and your previous topic, both exactly 6 years ago (which happens to be where I am right now in catching up with him).
Sooo...to get the answer of 'no' we have to get essentially as pedantic as the most 'technically' correct answer to the question 'can you touch something'
Finally a new video that isn’t a rerun.
Thank you for breaking down how the formation of ice crystals leading to The reasoning behind why two snowflakes wouldn't be scientifically impossible.
It all depends on what question you're actually asking. all the snow in 1 area where it snowed? all the snow on earth at one time? all the snow on every planet in the universe? current snow? all past and future snow? when you take into account the vast spectrum of that question the answer differs.
Jeeez! Lower the background music! We want Kyle back!
ua-cam.com/video/nzY47SnWpbM/v-deo.html
Yeah? And I want 3000 flurbos so I can spend a day at Blips and Chitz! Both scenarios are equally likely to occur.
Just go to Kyle's new channel. Do you think BS wanted Kyle to leave? Now this channel is doing its best to put out good content for its subscribers. It's been a few months now man. Whining about Kyle being gone at this point... why? I don't have any clue why anyone would still be doing this. Please enlighten me why after this long you would still complain about this instead of, if you don't like it, unsubscribe and go to Kyle's new channel.
Kris Keller that escalated quickly 😂😂
@@MalinOfSweden so... no answer then eh? Like when the change first happened giving your opinion sure, that makes sense. After this much time... why? That's a serious question. Why still whine about it after this much time instead of unsubscribing and moving over to Kyle's channel?
Kris Keller it’s time to calm down for a second. You don’t know me or what situation caused me to miss that Kyle is gone. Hell you don’t know if I’ve been in a coma or hooked up to life support intensive care with Corona fighting for my life or served my country overseas. So go have a cookie and think for a second before you start harassing people.
But this standard, two billets of steel with the same dimensions down to the atom in width can't be 'identical', since they'll have different tensions and internal stressors... It's a cop-out, rather than a real answer. They CAN look identical, but because their internal, atomic structure is different, they're not identical. It ignores the daily use of the word 'identical'.
Identical twins have TONS of differences, when you account for how food lies differently in their internal organs, because they eat at different times. Doesn't make them not 'identical twins', does it?
Another thanks for making it easier to understand why two identical snowflakes would not be scientifically possible.
Honestly, it's a matter of philosophy. One could argue that with infinite time, a way to make snow continuously fall, perfect constant conditions within a controlled environment, you *have* to have the exact same molecular structure occur repeated times, because it is just probability. An example analogy would is when you play a game and grind for a specific item and you keep going after you get that item, then you get another one, and another. It might be a really rare drop, and the odds of getting two might be unlikely, but it is never impossible. But then there is the philosophy that it could never truly be "the exact same" as that would entail it having the same quantum state, it would have to be in the exact same place and time, in the exact same molecular structure, at the exact same velocity, in the exact same direction, etc etc. Whether or not you classify something as "the same", all depends on how technical you want to get. You could say that all snow as a whole is the same, because it is all frozen flakes of water, or that they are all different. Then you can even go and say that they shouldn't technically exist because the universe's origins make no sense, due to the need for there to be a beginning of the beginning, or a time before time, or a reason for anything and everything to ever exist ever. You could say that the snowflake should be impossible to exist because of the forces being exerted on it, such as gravity, its mass being what it is, wind, other particles, etc. You could say that the rays from the sun should melt them before they even hit the ground, assuming the rays can even hit them in the first place while they are still falling. While it is true that there is a myriad of Dichotomies on subjects such as these, I think it is most appropriate to say that the answer is both are true. As a collective, all of us humans as beings, people, individuals, are the same, while also being different in our own unique ways. While we all share the trait of individuality, we also share commonalities with each other. The point is, we are all the same, and unique. Our humanity, our love and compassion, our drive, our passion for art, science, learning, making things better, and making each other and ourselves better and happier, is what makes us all wonderful, strange, funny, and complex beings.
First of all no its not scientificly impossible, its scientificly very unlikely which you mathmaticly show. I don't like the use of ultimates like never and impossible in a video that mathematicaly proves it is possible. Even if implausible.
You know that's not what we mean by identical. If they look the same up close to the naked eye, they can be considered "identical". We aren't talking about subatomic similarities
Probably recorded from home because of this current situation but the voice quality is just a little too harsh ?
My few minute estimate is more infrequently than 1 out of every 675*10^5120, though weather patterning may make it more frequent (not comprehensibly, though).
Can one of you do a video about what the unrelenting force shout from skyrim would do to your body? I can imagine what it would it do, but I want to see a science video about it
well that boils down to how precisely you define unique, right? when talking about uniqueness, most people talk about differences visible to the naked eye.
1:41 mean to say "infinitesimal" instead of "infinite"?! :)
Came to say this
@@ben_clifford same!
wow she contradicts herself HARD. she says it is impossible then speaks of finite probability.
This universe is so amazing. The further we look, the more it blows our minds.
Right side is louder for some reason but thanks for the video
why is the audio only on the right track?
The question is about observable patterns, not atomic ones.
I think most people who doubt the claim is cause there are a "finite" number of shapes they can take. The size of them is sort of negligible so sure, you can have that, but the molecular makeup making them individual..... kind of an easy way out cause you can say that about almost anything in the universe with mass.
"Snow scientist?" LOL!
Pluto is a planet and you cant change my mind
Of course it's a planet. A dwarf planet.
I like this format
Cesar Quintanilla of the comments section?
Simple and pointless. I can see y u like it, the apple doesn't fall far ayyy....
Juan Espinoza idk how I feel the comment section yet.
1. Some of your snowflakes have 8 sides and not 6 or multiples of 6 as they should
2. Your oxygens are bonded to 4 hydrogens, and your hydrogens are bonded to 4 oxygens, instead of showing hydrogen bonding between water molecules
3. Probability can be 1 at maximum. It cannot be infinite. You could say it's nearly zero, not nearly infinite
4. Nowhere in the video is there a proof that it is impossible for the two snowflakes to be the same in terms of bonding or amount of atoms if they're carefully made in vacuum (to avoid contact with water in the air possibly changing the snowflake)
Has there been any one in the history of man who has looked at each and every snowflake even within the same hour to come up with the conclusion that "no two snowflakes are exactly the same"?
Cheap shot at Pluto. Poor Pluto.
At this point I think we're splitting molecules.
I don't observe snow flakes I melt them.
So nothing can ever be truly duplicated. But being the exact same and being effectively the same are not mutually exclusive.
But can there be snowflakes that are visually identical, even if their detailled molecular structures are not?
Yes, they even said this in the video.
Dr. M. I Love the science stuff to death.
But our teachers, they were right about Pluto, as being a planet is a convention that changes, before the change it was technically correct to say "Pluto is a planet", isn't it?
_Molecular variations and different subatomic particle placements._
Now that's just pedantic...
My right ear likes this video more than my left!
Yes but that's kind of a lame answer because everything is unique even if made to be the exact same like those kilo standards which where molecules off
Quantum phyisics says that it is possible because of the hisenburg uncertainty princible
Well... yeah. That’s true for everything in the universe though. If you look at any two close enough they won’t be exact.
Ive stayed for Dr. Moo. Can we see her face again
fun fact: the total number of possbile molecular combinations work out to a discrete value.
the fact? oh just that no discrete value can ever be "nearly infinite"
"1:40 The probability of two snow flakes being exactly the same is nearly infinite" that's not how probability works. Probabilities are between 0 and 1. It could be infinitely small, but not infinite. Overall though, the exact same argument could be for grains of sand or any other small, seemingly similar thing.
"Impossible" - I do not think it means what you think it means
Having spent some time on Tumblr, I’m confident in saying yes.
Anyone else find it funny that the first video without Kyle is discussing if you can copy a one of a kind thing?
what "C" ? I just know celsius. 😃
Americans are so for F and they can't even say Celsius
@@williamhopkins4321
But C is the way to write it
So is F
I do not get how being American changes them for being less credible
Almost as if you are assuming that is their fault the education system sucks...
@@Shiny_Rayz I think they meant it as a joke since you write it like this '°C'
Doubt, but if it was a joke, I am stupid then...
@@williamhopkins4321 Americans are not "for" F, this is simply the unit that is used in that country. You would use F if that is what your country used. I hope you understand the difference between being "for" a unit and simply using the unit that is already established in your country.
I think the saying means, to the average person, no two snowflakes "look alike," and we can assume the average person understands "look alike" means, "to the naked eye." I have no issue with the scientific explanation of the near-infinite probabilities on a molecular level, but the difference between what people expect the saying to mean and the scientific explanation of the molecular differences should have been made stronger. Maybe I missed it, but then that kind'a make my point.
It feels rushed and is missing the human interaction aspect
In their defence, they possibly can't do the human interaction element right now, what with worldwide quarantines in respond to the global pandemic and all.
I think Kyle left
Not sure though
@@AdrianWoodUK yeah that I get but even when Kyle left they didn't get anyone new
@@mjkrh What are you basing that on? I do note that 1) Kyle was in a video here less than a week ago, 2) he's still listed by name in the channel description. Not saying you're wrong, to be clear, I'm just trying to check if you have some reason to think that, or if it's a guess on your part.
@@mjkrh yes. He did leave but he has his own channel called Kyle Hill
I miss Kyle.
Check out his new channel. It's called "Kyle Hill"
Each snowflake is beautiful and unique until you have to get the shovel to clear the snow.
Background music too loud and what is"C"? Celsius ?
Obviously. In today's age you need to be familiar with all the common units. It will help you going forward.
But there are massive amounts of snowflakes, and it isn't about anything other than appearance
*Boomers have entered the chat*
Why have they?
Um hum... right right... woah... ok I think I’m done
No two ANYTHING is exactly alike.
Dr. Moo!!!!!!!!!😃💚
Of course, if they are twins
Come on! You gotta diss my boy Pluto like that? Not cool, Dr Moo. Not cool.
I'm with you bro. i love doctor Moo but i have strong feelings about Pluto
1:41 The probability is infinite?
is it possible for two peoople to have the same fingerprints? This has always bothered me because there's only so much space on your finger
Yes, also same for DNA.
Apparently no, because on a molecular level something will be slightly different, according to this video.
The variation may be so imperceptibly small that it's irrelevant and undetectable by common methods, and the conclusion entirely disregards the the spirit of the question, but TECHNICALLY they're different.
@@YamiYaiba We are talking about fingerprints, not fingers. So the shape you see when powder is applied to the oil residue left behind. So it's an image.
Here's a good question for the channel
"Will Kyle ever come back"
Nope he's no longer in the void. He teaches now on the facility
that was doctor moo....so I guess shes still on the sinking ship lol
1. Probability of infinity doesn’t make sense mathematically
2. If it did make sense mathematically it would mean there has to be identical snowflakes
Soooo, you're saying there is a chance? Got it. LikeI've heard before its not impossible, just improbable.
The looping intro music is giving me a headache
There's nothing explicitly stopping it, it's just what we like to call *hella unlikely*
“The probability of two snowflakes being exactly the same is nearly infinite”
Sure
But can superman be cut by a lightsaber?
that's kyles content.since kyle left this channel these guys don't realy have interesting content anymore.I suggest you check out kyles new channel"kyle hill".👍
Celsius
Sooooo yes, they can be identical...
Just not on a molecular level
Couldn't that be said about most things?
On an atomic level of course it's not identical but to the eye, maybe
Kyle fam where you at bb????? Is this the seeker lady??
He has his own channel now.
Look for the channel called Kyle Hill. The voice over is Dr Moogega. I'm not sure what you mean by "seeker".
Kyle left this channel.check out his new channel "kyle hill"- very cool content
Hydrogen atoms.. D'what... this is huge, how can such a complicated thing be brushed off like in this video!? That's huge i had no idea in the in-discrepancy in hydrogen atoms!
Are you shitting me? "Scientifically" impossible? Practically impossible sure, but it's definitely possible, just EXTREMELY unlikely.
No views and 8 comments? Weird
verification rates for views, comments, and likes are different, so people will have watched it when they commented, but youtube hasn't verified the views yet to make sure they're not mirror accounts, bots, etc... and will not display unverified views
@@dominicmcg2368 I'm guessing you watched Steve Mold or Tom Scott's video.
WHERE IS OUR BOY?!?
Kyle left Nerdist and started his own channel called "Kyle Hill".
@@JasonWW2000 you just saved my life.
Well that’s just like anything then. Anything is very unlikely to be the exact same as any other of its kind.
Photons can be the same.
@@Drkwll Anything "can" be the same, just more complex things are less likely to be the exact same. The more simple it is (such as a photon) the more likely it is to be the same. I suppose if something was simple enough it would always be exactly the same as any other of itself.
where its thor
Kyle has left Nerdist and started a new channel called Kyle Hill. Check it out, its good.
Because Science: "There are approximately 10 quintillion molecules in each snowflake. With such a vast amount and the possible variations of those molecules, the probability of two snowflakes being exactly the same is nearly infinite."
Floyd Christmas: "So you're telling me there's a chance..... YEAH!"
Well, that was pretty obvious
Where the hell is Kyle?!? I don’t trust science without his hair!!!
On his own youtube channel "Kyle Hill".
it depends: if the universe is infinite, then its sure, that there has been two snowflakes, that are identical. but probaply not on earth, yes
diss pluto again, i dare you
Who else wants kyle back?
His own channel is great