The Periodic Table in a 2D World

Рет қаралды 384,960

minutephysics

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 541

@thismakesnosense Ай бұрын

2D Video by Minutephysics 4D Video by 3Blue1Brown Us dimension lovers are eating good today.

@bwayagnes Ай бұрын

So true 😂

@buzzzysin Ай бұрын

Man, I really love my (X)-dimensional videos

@KingJAB_ Ай бұрын

Real! It seems like videos of a similar topic often come out all at once. I wonder if that’s a coincidence, or if KZbinrs conspire to release similar videos at the same time. A few weeks ago, veritasium and alphaphoenix released videos with the same 5-hypercube graphic on the same day 🤔

@NikPinski Ай бұрын

Good Electron Soup

@jamiepayton1574 Ай бұрын

Such a good dimensional day

@septa7559 Ай бұрын

Make a 4D version next

@erik-ic3tp Ай бұрын

Yeah and then 5D and beyond.

@dattatreyadas Ай бұрын

That would make 3b1b sad

@jimblonde2523 Ай бұрын

1d? Maybe?

@jlchappell Ай бұрын

Thought that too. Let’s do the reverse calculations into 4D and see if there’s any new “aha” moments that make new science!

@DemoneX1704 Ай бұрын

In the sciences channels of the 4D Miner discord I read that in 4D atoms collapse. But because some members want to make a 4D periodic table, they needed to change the values of the strong/weak forces if I remember correctly.

@quinn7894 Ай бұрын

2:39 Fantastic name ideas Matt Parker - from Stand-up Maths Brady Haran - from Periodic Videos (and Numberphile, etc.) Grant Sanderson - from 3Blue1Brown Dianna Cowern - from Physics Girl

@grigorbrowning Ай бұрын

There is no higher honour.

@MattiasKesti Ай бұрын

Maybe more relevant in this case: Brady Haran - from Periodic Videos (and Numberphile and a dozen other channels)

@MattiasKesti Ай бұрын

Oh, and mattparkeron should really be an element that almost could exist, but not quite.

@Living_Murphys_Law Ай бұрын

Mattparkerium is an element with an extremely long half life, but isn't quite stable

@yuricahere Ай бұрын

And Derek's element - Veritasium.

@9darkspells Ай бұрын

If I remember correctly, its been shown experimentally that when confined to a 2D space, the restrictions on the available spin states of particles becomes relaxed. (For those looking for more details the keyword is "anyon") As a result I wonder if with this restriction relaxed if the orbitals of a 2d atom wouldnt instead be *significantly* more crowded... since perhaps the electron might take on more than simply 1/2 and -1/2 spin, and it might be possible to contain more than two in each orbital. An orbital with a -1/2, -1/3, 1/3, and 1/2 spin electron in it? Best source I can think of for a crash course on this topic is "can a particle be neither matter nor force" by PBS space time. Does an incredible job of explaining both why its the introduction of the third dimension that locks down spin to half integer values, and why the restriction doesn't exist in 2d.

@codetoil Ай бұрын

Each particle of a particle type has the same magnitude of its spin, regardless if it is an anyon. So an electron in 2d would have the magnitude of its spin equaling 1/2, no matter what. But a particle with the magnitude of its spin equaling 1/3 could hypothetically exist in 2D

@thatracher Ай бұрын

replying to remind myself to look that up at some point

@ismayonnaiseaninstrument8700 Ай бұрын

@@thatracherYou needed a reminder in your notifications?Gotchu, my dude.

@AFufn Ай бұрын

3:50 if in 2D , nuclear physics (physics of gluons and quarks) work similar to 3D , atom nucleos will be more unstable , because smaller number of contacting protons and neutrons , makes smaller nuclear connect , and also beacause stronger coulomb forces

@HannahKossen Ай бұрын

@@AFufn but will the 2D strong force have as small a reach as it has in 3D? If atoms don't ionize due to the inverse square law not holding up, maybe something similar happens to the nucleus as well?

@nathan92238 Ай бұрын

The nuclear force between nucleons is transmitted through pions (a quark and antiquark pair) it has a finite range b/c the mesons annihilate. I know higher energy nuclei can have rotational bands to create more states which I guess would be limited to counter and clockwise? I wonder if the stronger coulomb force means stable 2D nuclei have more neutrons even at low Z too

@matthewe3813 Ай бұрын

woudn't magnetic force not work at all in 2d, since it works by a cross product which is inherently 3-dimensional (or 7-dimensional, but that's irrelevant)

@AFufn Ай бұрын

@@HannahKossen as nathanj202 said , nuclear forces particle-transmitter is pion which is unstable particle with mass , what makes it hard , for far nuclear force interaction , if pions in 2D will be more stable then nucleos will be too

@AFufn Ай бұрын

@@matthewe3813 coulomb force isnt about magnetism but about charge interaction , but this is also interesting because particle will not have spin , and therefore not any atoms interaction at all

@orthodynamicstereonails Ай бұрын

Wow, that is the best general explanation of the periodic table that I have ever heard. Great job!

@giuwuseppe Ай бұрын

bro watched the video while it was uploading

@QuantumHistorian Ай бұрын

There's one more caveat to add, and it's a big one. The Fermion Exclusion principle doesn't hold in 2+1 dimensions AFAIK. So the whole idea that there can only be a certain number of electrons per orbit falls out the window. And, indeed, chemistry too, and much much else besides it.

@Currywurst4444 Ай бұрын

Very interesting, why?

@QuantumHistorian Ай бұрын

@@Currywurst4444 It boils down to the spin-statistics theorem in Quantum Field Theory. There was a time when I could walk through the proof and convince myself I understood each step, but I never really "got" an intuitive understanding of it. I'm not sure an explanation of why it works differently in 3+1 compared to 2+1 dimensions is possible without at least a Masters in the relevant area of Physics. But IIRC, it's closely related as to why in 2D we get anyons on too of bosons and fermions, but not in 3D.

@whatthehelliswrongwithyou Ай бұрын

Here is my attempt of explaining why thats the case with just some quantum mechanics. Imagine two identical particles at positions 1 and 2, you move them in space so that particle 1 is now in position 2 and vice versa. The world stayed the same (particles are identical) which means every measurement should be the same which means we could at most have changed the phase of the wave function. Now change yhe particles again. We are back to the initial situation, whatever change we had of the wavefunction should have squared to 1. So either we had a 1 or a minus 1 after the first change -- this is the difference between bosons and fermions (or at least one way to see it). In 2 dimensions there are many ways to change the postions of particle ls with respect to the topology of the path, so our argument no longer works. In some sense we get anyons -- particles with any spin (i need to be checked here)

@QuantumHistorian Ай бұрын

@@whatthehelliswrongwithyou From what I recall, this is the explanation for why everything obeys Boson or Fermion symmetry in 3d. But not why the former all have integer spin and the later half integer spin. The bit about restricted topology in 2D also rings vague bells... but I think there's more to it than that. The link between symmetry / anti-symmetry under particle exchange and particle spin also breaks down. But I fear this is quickly approaching the limit of what I have any confidence on lol

@NoLongerBreathedIn Ай бұрын

If you assume that electrons have spin 1/2 then you don't have to worry about it. Spin-statistics still holds, but there are particles that don't have half-integer spin.

@jasperhu8775 Ай бұрын

I was in the Singapore Chemistry Olympiad in 2018 and one of the questions in the first round were like "discuss the chemical property of carbon in a 2D world and in particular, draw the structure (bondings) of a 2D benzene molecule - would it exist at all?" I somehow came to the conclusion that 2D benzene would be a completely saturated compound like 3D cyclohexane.

@ensiehsafary7633 Ай бұрын

Wtf they asked such question in the first round? 😂 And I'm just learning acids and bases in highschool

@PurpleShift42 Ай бұрын

By first round do you mean the national qualifying exam (the first selection round for Australian Science Olympiad summer camp) or like, the selection rounds for the team that's going on to compete internationally? Because I gotta agree with @@ensiehsafary7633, that is a bananas question to drop (unless there's a lot of explanation and the question parts are basically handholding the student through the problem) the very first stage, where the syllabus only expects you to know (i.e. be taught) up to first year university chemistry As for how I know - I did the Chem NQE in 2009 & '10 (only got a distinction both times; my high school regularly makes the international teams in maths and the sciences), and I directly credit what I learned in Chem Olympiad for getting a distinction in my first year chemistry classes

@robertkennedy3521 Ай бұрын

S orbital becomes a circle. We now only have 2 p orbitals (px and py). Now if we assume hybridisation is still possible, we can form 3 x sp2 hybrids at angles of 120° to each other, populated by 4 electrons total. We can use these to form a planar, 6-membered cyclic molecule which is fully saturated. Each carbon would have a lone pair. Formula C6. Same shape as benzene I guess. If we form just 2 x sp hybrids at angles of 180° to each other, we could have an singly-occupied unhybridised p-orbital and attempt 2D ‘pi bonding’ but only to form ‘ethene’ with formula C2 and each carbon having a lone pair in one of the sp hybrids.

@emilydavis771 Ай бұрын

The first unique 2D element should be called Abbottium after the author of Flatland. You could also have Euclidium, Pythagorium, Mandelbrotium...

@JouvaMoufette Ай бұрын

I am all for having an element named Mattparkeron

@wolfbd5950 Ай бұрын

I think Mattparkeron would be an isotope of a different element. Which, of course, means that in our world, he's the deuterium of maths explainers.

@Quasarbooster Ай бұрын

It would be almost right but just a bit off

@JouvaMoufette Ай бұрын

@@Quasarbooster instead of a prime number for an atomic weight, it's the only one with a decimal, so it's got a weight of 42.98

@joaocabralpv Ай бұрын

parker element

@snowgods2195 Ай бұрын

He's big headed enough after having an asteroid named after him (31415). Can you imagine what he'd be like with an element. At least Brady wouldn't be dropping the camera and walking out, since he also has his own element.

@DaveyL2013 Ай бұрын

A 2d universe also wouldn't be limited to fermions and bosons, and would also have anyons, which would probably result in entirely different physics altogether, so that's a third reason to invalidate it! :)

@sensorer Ай бұрын

Damn, looks like I wasn't first to point that out. Good catch Now I'm realizing that I don't actually know how the statistics for those different fractional spins would look like. Gotta read up :)

@happyboy4770 Ай бұрын

flatland just got way crazier

@likebot. Ай бұрын

FEC'n crazy.

@manuderezzo Ай бұрын

Something interesting is also that in a 2d universe you would have different fundamental forces and particles. Down to the fact that anyons are allowed. You could probably have elements made of anyons bound together

@LonkinPork Ай бұрын

The notorious element Mattparkeron doesn't quite crystallize into a square pattern, but it gets really close!

@solarshado Ай бұрын

This kind of reminds me of the science behind Greg Egan's Orthogonal trilogy; except that there, instead of dropping a spatial dimension, Egan tweaked an equation in general relativity that treats the time dimension differently than the three spatial ones to instead treat all four identically. (Specifically, flipping the sign of the time term in the equation representing the spacetime interval, changing the overall equation from "s^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - (ct)^2" to "s^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + (ct)^2".) The effects of this small change ripple out through virtually every field of science, and Egan "shows his work" in considerable detail on his web site for those interested. However, in typical Egan fashion, a significant portion of the trilogy is devoted to the characters organically discovering the resulting physics as they "speedrun" a scientific revolution in an attempt to save their home planet from an impending disaster. IMO it's a fun read if you're a massive physics nerd, especially if you manage to notice what discovery they're working toward before they do.

@DanielLCarrier Ай бұрын

Functionally, you could still ionize atoms. Sure it takes an infinite amount of energy to get the electron infinitely far, but you could still get it exponentially further with more energy.

@ypolub Ай бұрын

2D creatures in 2D universe can’t see the 2D periodic table

@ypolub Ай бұрын

Unless it is binary

@janTesika Ай бұрын

sure they can- it would just need to be made in either a giant room, thus allowing our 2D creatures to walk inside it, or in one long line (which isn't much of a table, I guess).

@iRossco Ай бұрын

@@janTesika2D creature: what's a giant room? Do you mean a square? 😊

@cyalknight Ай бұрын

If you could attach multiple lines to a center point, then each ray might be a column of the periodic table. Like the pages of a book. Maybe even different colors for each row.

@josefvincent2542 Ай бұрын

At 2:16 there are two Be, beryllium notations on the table

@eekee6034 Ай бұрын

Looks like a H->B typo for helium. I wondered about that, but wasn't awake enough to make sense of it until I saw your comment.

@sweeterstuff Ай бұрын

i love me some 🅱elium

@risha5642 Ай бұрын

IIRC the physics of 2D elements is briefly brought up in Death's End (3rd novel in the Three Body Problem/Remembrance of Earth's Past trilogy) and I'd been wondering about it since. Cool to see it come up here!

@christiannorf1680 Ай бұрын

Read it recently. No, he only describes how it might look, but that's it. There pretty much everything becomes static when falling to 2D and fading out of visibility after the original release of the extra energy. When close the end somebody asked when the collapse into two dimensions would stop. Man, that hit differently.

@risha5642 Ай бұрын

@christiannorf1680 Ah my memory embellished it then, my bad. I agree re: that moment though; "It will never stop." really made me stop reading for a minute to process how horrifying that was.

@celestema740 Ай бұрын

I was waiting for someone to bring up that novel. Part V (the section featuring the dimensional collapse and the lead-up) is absolutely horrifying.

@HannahKossen Ай бұрын

At least in two dimensions you can calculate the wave function of all elements relatively easy

@christiannorf1680 Ай бұрын

When particle in a box suddenly becomes a good model 😅

@Sarsenwood Ай бұрын

Bunker-Era humans been REAL quiet since this dropped.

@diegocassola1 Ай бұрын

Just some preparations for when humanity will need to fall into 2D

@sulfo4229 Ай бұрын

Singer has no idea that we now understand 2D chemistry.

@craiggersify Ай бұрын

This is one of the topics covered in the strange, wonderful (and illustrated!) book “Planiverse”, a project that tries to imagine a flatland-type world with more “realistic” physics, chemistry, and biology. It’s wild the kind of things they thought of to imagine life working in 2D! Worth a look for the curious.

@jpe1 Ай бұрын

When I was in college (long time ago…) I tried building the 2D clock from that book, using cardboard, and it didn’t really work. Now that 3D printing is a thing, I might try again. (For the humorousness of using a 3D printer to print flat parts to model a 2D clock) … I just looked, and I still have my copy of Planiverse. It’s one of the books I most vividly recall from my college days.

@milihun7619 Ай бұрын

In a truly 2+1 D spacetime, there wouldn't be only two topologically allowed types of particles, namely bosons ('force carriers', like the photon) and fermions ('matter particles', like the electron), but infinite many allowed types interpolating between these two, collectively called anyons. This abundance would make electrons irrelevant in that universe.

@mcpecommander5327 Ай бұрын

Interesting. Can you elaborate why?

@milihun7619 Ай бұрын

@@mcpecommander5327 Yes, but the reason is quite technical. However, you can find nice visualisations for it here on this site. Since the famous Gibb's paradox of thermodynamics, we know that elementary particles and atoms are fundamentally indistinguishable from eachother (unlike two tennis balls, fx.). The configuration space of particle exchange of this kind in 3D is topologically the real projective plane (RP^2). (We assume that the distance between the two particles is constant during the exchange, and the center of mass is fixed, to reduce the number of dimensions.) There are only two different kinds of possible closed loops in that manifold; one for single exchange and one for 'do nothing'/no exchange (bc. the path of double exchange is contractible on that manifold). So the phase of the wave function has to be the same at the end of the double exchange as the initial phase. However, there is no such restriction for a single exchange. Bc. of symmetry, there are two possibilities for the single exchange final state: the phase can return to the initial (boson), or the inverse of it (fermion). The configuration space of the exchange of identical particles is topologically the real projective line (RP^1). There are infinitely many different closed loops in that, so the wave function doesn't have to return, the phase can be anything (anyons). If you follow the exchange in spacetime, you also get different 'braids' (braid statistics). There is a fundamental theorem in QFT, the spin statistics theorem (that no one understands, we just get used to it). It says that bosons follow Bose-Einstein statistics (they like to be at the same state), while fermions follow the Fermi-Dirac statistics (they dont like to be in the same state). Anyons follow statistics that interpolate between the curve of these two. *RP^1 describes exchange in 2D, of course.

@milihun7619 Ай бұрын

@@mcpecommander5327 There are only two different kinds of possible closed loops in that manifold; one for single exchange and one for 'do nothing'/no exchange (bc. the path of double exchange is contractible on that manifold). So the phase of the wave function has to be the same at the end of the double exchange as the initial phase. However, there is no such restriction for a single exchange. Bc. of symmetry, there are two possibilities for the single exchange final state: the phase can return to the initial (boson), or the inverse of it (fermion). The configuration space of the exchange of identical particles is topologically the real projective line (RP^1).

@macronencer Ай бұрын

I really loved the look of your explanation of the periodic table at the start. I'd love to see it covered in detail at some point (and at a slower speed... which I realise isn't your MO).

@faaizalavi2976 Ай бұрын

I’ve been subscribed since the genesis of this channel. This channel has impacted the trajectory of my life as I am an engineering masters graduate. Today is the first time I’ve seen your face

@Looey 14 күн бұрын

Nice ! I go back to when Lawrencium's abbreviation was Lr or Lw. Yeah, over 50 yrs...but thank you for this video - it's made me think in how the table is arranged. Thank Youuuu

@tordjarv3802 Ай бұрын

While it is true that the electric force in 2D goes as 1/r, the potential would go as -ln(r/r0) (where r0 is an arbitrary constant to make the argument for the logarithm unit less). Since it is the potential that goes in to the Schrödinger equation this has one huge problem, no electron would be bound to the nucleus. So there can’t be a 2D periodic table at all.

@Anonymous-df8it Ай бұрын

Surely *_all_* electrons would be bound to the nucleus, no?

@MindyFitzpatrick-o4k Ай бұрын

3 questions. 1 Serten atoms like gold mercury and uranium what would their counterparts be? Gold coins thermometers and nukes they’d have to be different elements. 2 the periodic table is 2D so you can see all of the elements but in 2D it has to be 1D so 2D beings can see all the elements. 3 we might have to completely rearrange the table to se it properly.

@MrRandomSuperhero Ай бұрын

im gonna be straight here - Midvideo ads in videos this short are an utter dealbreaker. Ive followed this channel for as long as it has existed but that is something i cannot abide.

@waynekiely4137 Ай бұрын

Loved your new element names!

@QuantumHistorian Ай бұрын

1:02 Of course we know why the tank has that shape. The width at each height is given by the number of different Spherical Harmonics compatible with that height (aka, energy). In other words, it's the number of orthogonal (aka, completely different) ways of moving non-radially with a given angular momentum, where that angular momentum doesn't exceed the energy of an electron in that shell. It's rather like counting Fourier components up to a given energy (aka frequency), except you have to be periodic in two different ways because it's happening on the surface of a sphere rather than in 1d. Whether that answers "why" depends on your personal epistemology of physics, but it's fundamentally no more mysterious than anything else in analytical geometry.

@nicholasandrzejkiewicz Ай бұрын

And pointing to the area of mathematics the answer can be given in two words: "representation theory." Or slightly more usefully "unitary representation theory of the 3-d rotation group." Real atoms are slightly more interesting than angular momentum reps, for example there is an so(4) symmetry for the hydrogen atom. Some of these details are in Peter Woit's book on "Quantum Theory, Groups and Representations."

@SultanLaxeby Ай бұрын

@@nicholasandrzejkiewicz can you expand a bit more on the so(4) symmetry for the hydrogen atom? Are you actually referring to the (Lie algebra of the) rotation group in 4 dimensions?

@northernepicadvenure Ай бұрын

Can a molecular biologist jump in here and tell me if life with a 2d periodic table would be possible? Looking at you Minute Earth.

@LethalChicken77 Ай бұрын

Not a molecular biologist, but the inability for things to move past each other would limit the possibility of life. For instance, a GI tract would split a 2D organism in two

@northernepicadvenure Ай бұрын

@@LethalChicken77 sure, but not all organisms have a GI tract Starfish for example.

@breadcodes Ай бұрын

@@LethalChicken77 it could potentially still work if they are single celled, as they already absorb the food and eject the waste. If they have multiple cells they would likely start as a "U" shape to eat, an "O" shape for the inner cells to digest, and an "n" shape to eject waste. Some small organisms already do this in 3D, but that potentially means nothing in 2D

@SirRebrl Ай бұрын

@@LethalChicken77 The idea that a GI tract would split an organism in two represents a lack of imagination. For instance, instead of sphincters at various points along the tract an organism could have claspers that form sealed channels when clasped, ie, the tract is never continuously open from end to end. And as needed, forces like electromagnetism can be used to maintain a degree of bond while allowing solids to pass through the space of the bond.

@eekee6034 Ай бұрын

@@SirRebrl I wonder about nervous and circulatory systems coexisting. I guess some fairly basic functions would be regularly interrupted or would be more complex to work around the interruptions. Perhaps living creatures might be slower overall.

@haniyasu8236 Ай бұрын

Despite the 2D element "Mattparkerton" not actually existing, it's still great we did some working out and gave it a go.

@ReynaMirez Ай бұрын

This is actually a fascinating idea. What would the solution to the schrödinger equation for the hydrogen atom be if the coulomb force went as 1/r (and therefor the coulomb potential would go as 1/ln(r)) and we only tried to solve it in 2 dimensions? Could we even do it. I would love to see someone try to find an equivelant radial and angular solution in 2 dimensions with this different potential.

@HannahKossen Ай бұрын

@@ReynaMirez we'd go from spherical harmonics to simple circular harmonics, I'd suspect every higher energy level just adds an oscillation around the loop. So basically the Bohr model again. Edit: a little like this ( kzbin.info/www/bejne/pX3HXmmLrtmef7csi=Fp8aFhTd-yESP2t- )

@sensorer Ай бұрын

An important note brought up by another commenter is that the potential would go as -ln(r/r0) which would mean there are no bound states. Although the orbitals themselves do change from spherical harmonics to circular harmonics, we wouldn't have a discrete energy spectrum, so I don't think that the usual shell structure and thus the periodic structure would be useful at all. I mean, we can treat free electrons as being on some orbital in a spherically symmetric non-existent potential, but it doesn't make it any more interesting, does it? 😁

@Grashcoy Ай бұрын

There's a nice potential application for this and it's called CARTOON CHEMISTRY. We can now retroactively understand the reactions we see in cartoons as occurring according to a 2D world periodic table, from why so many things blow up and spark all the way up to why the Mask is indestructible! Magic!

@MatthewMosher-s7j Ай бұрын

4:07-- the diagram of 2D atoms unable to be ionized tickles my brain with respect to thin film superconductivity.

@MrxstGrssmnstMttckstPhlNelThot Ай бұрын

That electron orbital version of the Periodic Table at about 0:28 makes things so much more intuitive whoa

@MrZelenka4th Ай бұрын

I really appreciate you using the non-squished periodic table!

@evasuser Ай бұрын

He's genious, one of the creators that make youtube what is is now and a joy to watch and learn.

@theopoldthegamer4284 Ай бұрын

Missing captions at 0:55

@DanielVCOliveira Ай бұрын

Now this is some good content

@ianhay527 Ай бұрын

Love the mattparkeron, my new favorite element

@Idran Ай бұрын

since a lot of people are asking what about 4+ dimensions of space: Tangherlini showed in the paper "Schwarzschild field in n dimensions and the dimensionality of space problem" in 1963 that electron orbitals wouldn't be stable in more than 3 dimensions of space, so atoms wouldn't be able to form at all

@Ruepel Ай бұрын

me: "oh hey an ad that actually interests me" KZbin: "The uploader has not made this video available in your country"

@NathanR_sfba Ай бұрын

So would those [?] elements in the table at 2:30 have any novel chemical properties that we don't see in the 3D world?

@HwanSangHyang Ай бұрын

2:10 We can use numbers as temporary names. For example, element 113 (Nihonium) was formerly called Ununtrium (Unt).

@sensorer Ай бұрын

In 2D it would also be possible to have particles with different fractional spins (not only integers and half-integers) so we might have a "chemistry" featuring some other type of particle, not a fermion

@renanmarin267 Ай бұрын

He's baaaaack!!!! Thank you!!!

@Lucius_Chiaraviglio Ай бұрын

I read a Scientific American or American Scientist article (can't remember which) about 2D chemistry, but their periodic table looked even more abbreviated than the one shown here, if I remember correctly, and they came up with hybrid names for the elements due to predictions of them sharing some properties of different elements of our world (the one that sticks in my head is "Litrogen" -- supposed to have a combination of the properties of lithium and nitrogen). One other thing, which wasn't mentioned here and which I don't remember the article mentioning it either, is that magnetic fields as we know them wouldn't work in a 2D world. Rotating charges produce magnetic fields perpendicular to their plane of rotation, but in a 2D world, the rotation is confined to the 2D world, and no perpendicular direction is available. So while electrons and nucleons could still have opposite spins, they wouldn't be able to have magnetic interactions with each other, at least as we know such things. For quasiparticles on a 2D surface, the 3rd dimension is still present even if the quasiparticles can't move into it, so the above does not apply, and magnetic fields still work. The equivalent would be a universe that was 2D overall but with the addition of a very small 3rd dimension.

@safebox36 Ай бұрын

It's also worth noting that gravity would have some degree of effect on how elements are allowed to form. While gravity itself does not determine how an element bonds its components, it does (with a strong enough force like the gravitational pull of a planet) affect the strength of molecular bonds in minute wars. And in a two-dimensional universe, gravity just...isn't allowed to exist. As far as we know, there is no solution to allow for gravity as we currently understand it to exist in a universe with less than three spatial dimensions. Meaning that elements would not be drawn to one another so easily but at the same time larger elements can form more easily without decaying into lighter ones.

@vitoc8454 Ай бұрын

The Action Lab has a neat video about the basic physics of "2D beings" and demonstrated that, in a 2D-world you can't have organisms structured the same way as 3D ones are. For example, 3D organisms can have digestive tracts because you can have a tube running through a 3D object. Meanwhile, an unobstructed path through a 2D object would split the entire body in two.

@rtg_onefourtwoeightfiveseven Ай бұрын

Nice shoutouts at 2:40.

@gamereditor59ner22 Ай бұрын

Yeah, physic! Edit: I do like other science topics, but physics is my favorite!

@joelgoldenberg2029 Ай бұрын

I wonder if Paul Ehrenfest's theorem (by Bertrand's Theorem) that stable orbits are only possible in 3D, applies to this scenario as well. Meaning, that being that electrons in orbitals in atoms are not really "orbiting" in the classic sense, and not through gravity either, then a difficulty with orbits in 2D does not imply a difficulty with atomic orbitals in 2D.

@RobinDSaunders Ай бұрын

I came here wondering the same thing. Hopefully adding a comment will make it more likely that we get a response :) Edit: So far I found arXiv:1502.04989, "Why Observable Space Is Solely Three Dimensional". From the abstract: "Callender asserts that the often-repeated claim in previous work that stable orbits are possible in only three dimensions is not even remotely established. The binding energy analysis herein avoids the pitfalls that Callender points out, as it circumvents stability issues."

@annieabsorbsaqua5793 Ай бұрын

Hey, yeah, it *is* cool! I was thinking about this concept just the other day!

@coronelkittycannon Ай бұрын

Massive shoutout to the big brains who figured out the 3D periodic table on math alone.

@This_used_to_be_my_moms Ай бұрын

2:24 it says beryllium instead of helium!

@This_used_to_be_my_moms Ай бұрын

* 2:20

@christophkrass6929 Ай бұрын

I love the name ideas for the new elements

@70AD-user45 Ай бұрын

Very good chemistry here which we don't often hear.

@andreaskorner2339 Ай бұрын

2:14 Is that why graphene (carbon arranged as a quasi 2-D surface) is relatively inert, if I can frame it as a "noble gas" in the 2D world?

@CCABPSacsach Ай бұрын

4D people (assuming they don’t live on planets with an orbit because 4D can’t handle that): “Wow, if we lived in 3D, we wouldn’t have elements such as ꊼ̷̨̹̘̥̅̋̽̿̒͌́̕̕ͅͅæ̵͕̙̺̰̙̦̟̑̄͝ꃅ̸̤͈͔̯̼̠͎̰̅̈́̋̒̊͐͘̚͝ꉣ̸̨̬͎̱̈́̓̋̌̑̋̀͆̑̏͜ł̶̧͙̞͔̹̬̈͛̓̔́ͅꋪ̶̮̬̉͐̑́͆̚͜ę̴̞̰̭̙̬̙́̉̊ͅꉓ̶̨̼͎̼͉̥̳̞̥̿̒̀̄̉ꍟ̶͔͙̮̻̰̄͂̓í̵͕̯̆̊̉͐̐̏͐ꈤ̴̢̽͒̂̃̿̀ş̷̢̢̠͎̰͓̙͔̙̀̐͐̈̅̑͝ꉓ̷̞̟̜͚̂͋͋̔̂͗͂͂̓̇ꃅ̷͎̬͉̬̗̲͇͕͓͗̐̄̒̈́̒̔ͅœ̷̨͍͚͖̦̭͓̂ꀎ̵̡̧̝̬̰͛͒̄ġ̶̜͉̹̟̻̝͎̬̱͗̑͝ħ̵̨̢̱̳̩̜̀͌̀̈!

@Rebius Ай бұрын

Increadible, I thought I somehow managed to unknowingly speed up the video, than I realized it is the normal speed :D

@AdrianHereToHelp Ай бұрын

It may be a little anthropocentric, but I do absolutely feel like it just makes more sense to name the elements by chemical properties

@deltaradiation Ай бұрын

OMG THANK YOU this was something i was wondering the other day but googling didn’t give me anything

@xpndblhero5170 Ай бұрын

4:22 - Close enough for me.... 😮‍💨😁

@ziggyzoggin Ай бұрын

I love n dimensional speculation! Do 4D next!

@masonmount17 Ай бұрын

Realized I've never matched a face to your voice, cool

@Mladjasmilic Ай бұрын

Fun fact: The word 'unionized' is read differently depending on if you are a chemist or work at the car factory.

@SethTheOrigin Ай бұрын

I love 0:54 to 1:06 lol, he's just like "btw I am way oversimplifying and also a huge amount of this scientists have no fucking clue what is going on"

@jokerace8227 Ай бұрын

Still makes me wonder if the Periodic Table itself may make more sense in a 3 dimensional arrangement. But it might be all of the isotopes arranged that way that makes more sense, or maybe at least makes something about it all more obvious while looking at it from different angles in VR or whatever.

@adityakhanna113 Ай бұрын

1:40 having a 1/r law would mean energy follows a logarithmic law right? So it decreases with distance instead of increasing!

@lunkel8108 Ай бұрын

Yes, the potential would be logarithmic, as is also briefly shown in the video at 4:03. No, you can still absolutely have an attractive potential where energy increases as you get farther away, what he shows in the video is such a potential. It just doesn't have a horizontal asymptote anymore, which means that there are only bound states, which he also mentions.

@TazwaarAhmed09 Ай бұрын

think of it as (1/r)(1/r) instead of (1/r²) it makes more sense that way, at least to me

@cyalknight Ай бұрын

I have a thought, that even in a 2D world, at a certain level of chemistry or physics, there would still exist the third dimension. Which would mean if there are more than 3 dimensions, at a certain point in physics more dimensions exist. But I might be simplifying it so I can get my head around it.

@TF8ase Ай бұрын

That was fascinating. I love it. It was science and world building in one 😅😃

@hamishfox Ай бұрын

Watching this first thing in the morning was a mistake. My brain can't keep up with the words.

@ThrarmAnimation Ай бұрын

We HAVE to name the mystery elements 33 should be called Bodenzium because it sounds cool

@FuriousMaximum Ай бұрын

Minutephysics and 3Blue1Brown just posted about dimensions within 3 hours of each other just so you know :)

@Arturino_Burachelini Ай бұрын

It's also a great final exam exercise: you need to know how the 3D chemistry works to conjure up how 2D one works

@time-trader Ай бұрын

Now we know what the dual-vector foil does.

@jonahmorgan2474 Ай бұрын

I actually did a little bit of computation into this exact question earlier - if you try to (approximately) solve the hydrogen wavefunction with a ln(r) potential, you get orbitals that are shaped like r=cos(k*theta), for integer k, and they look a bit like flowers! The energy levels I calculated are different than what you predicted though: I calculated it would look more like 1s 1p 2s 1d 2p 1f 3s 2d 3p 1g 2f When organized by increasing energy level. I wonder if it is possible to analytically find the solution?

@r3dp9 Ай бұрын

I suspect a 4d periodic table would contain a LOT more possibilities, to the point of making chemistry obscenely more complex than it is for 3d. Between that, and it only being possible to tie knots with a 1 dimensional string in a 3d universe, I suspect 3d is the most convenient number of dimensions for living in.

@michaels.3709 Ай бұрын

Not being able to ionize a 2d atom feels a little like color confinement. Eventually an electron in a 2d atom would reach an energy state where it could induce the production of an electron-positron pair. Though it would likely reach a point where it's continuously emitting photons well before this could occur, I would guess.

@do_research Ай бұрын

What about states of matter in additional dimensions? If our universe suddenly evolved into 4 spatial and 1 time (5D because we live in 4D) how would everything change? I have heard many things before about the possibilities but I find this channel trustworthy of information. No biggie if you can't or don't want to.

@MrAurthur1.618 Ай бұрын

I’d like to see a video of visualizing atomic bonds with electron orbitals

@kuklama0706 Ай бұрын

- Why are there no stable nuclei with mass numbers 5 and 8 in nature? - Why does tin (Z = 50) have the maximum number of stable isotopes, namely 10? And for all these isotopes 12 < D < 24, where D = N - Z. Why? - Why only tin has three stable isotopes with an odd number of nucleons? That number is the maximum. Why? - Why xenon (Z = 54) has 9 stable isotopes? Moreover, for them 16 < D < 28. Why? - Why do tellurium (Z = 52) and cadmium (Z = 48) each have 8 stable isotopes? - Why do technetium (Z = 43) and promethium (Z = 61) have no stable isotopes at all? - Why are there only four odd-numbered stable nuclides (deuteron, lithium-6, boron-10, nitrogen-14)? - Why is it that between bismuth (Z = 83) and thorium (Z = 90) there are not only no stable, but even no long-lived radioactive nuclides? - Why is the fission of uranium, plutonium, and californium nuclei by slow neutrons is asymmetric and fast neutrons is symmetric?

@trevorwong-vanharen4975 Ай бұрын

do you play the bassline yourself? I've always wondered where you get it from? (I play bass too) :)

@fizisistguy Ай бұрын

If the inverse square law works for 3d objects, why do we use it while studying Gravity in 2 dimensions (circular orbits) ?

@userjames2009 Ай бұрын

Our actual planets are still 3D planets orbiting in a 3D universe.

@janiselmeris5705 Ай бұрын

Went right to the Decoding the Universe video, but they've disabled it for my country for some reason. 😟

@FENomadtrooper Ай бұрын

A physics documentary by PBS without Matt O'Dowd? I don't know if I could

@amber_amber101 Ай бұрын

The last part makes me wonder, perhaps we could simulate what would really happen? I'm very interested in how that could work, so maybe I'll even make a simulation myself

@mattparker7932 Ай бұрын

As someone named Matt Parker (no, not THAT Matt Parker), I fully support the option that results in the element known as mattparkeron.

@Yobleck Ай бұрын

I'd like to recommend the book "The Planiverse" by A.K. Dewdney. its sci-fi book about a 2D universe that explores topics like this video.

@VeteranVandal Ай бұрын

There are so many statements that are physical assumptions here. This is definitely something that deserves a very long justification instead of one minute. And I think some assumptions here are hard to make. At least you mention 2 of the issues at the end. There are more. I've tried to do this a few times (2D and 4D table and I never really cleared the problems that appeared). This video skips them too. But it's minute physics so it tends to lose the details.

@AstroTibs Ай бұрын

I was going to poke you about nuclear stability, but hey-glad I waited until the end.

@Voltorb1993 Ай бұрын

The book Planiverse explores this. It's a brilliant book.

@lafcursiax Ай бұрын

The numbering and arrangement of the table in the appendix are different than here, but I think it uses the "similar chemical properties" rule when naming the 2D elements. A lot of them there remain nameless too.

@lautaromorales2903 Ай бұрын

2:03 why isn't the 2d first period it's shifted down to the second period?

@Axacqk Ай бұрын

The whole Standard Model would be different in 2D. There probably wouldn't be reasonable analogues to any fields or particles from our world. There wouldn't be EM-bound atoms, because there would be no EM. There wouldn't be strong-force-bound nuclei, because there would be no strong force.

@siddhantkar6805 Ай бұрын

What about spin? The noble gas should be 1s2 2s2 2p4, which is Oxygen, not Carbon. Edit: I realize that the 2p orbital is filled before 2s, which probably has to do with the modified inverse law. The point still stands though.