you should probably pin this comment just so people can see it easier

smart! (some) teachers are most likely thanking you around the world for an amazing pi day :D

I'm sure if we consult stonehenge after rebuilding it according to the new, more accurate pi specification, we'll find that your timing is quite accurate.

Nice cover for making a bit of a Parker Square of this video release. :D

I mean, 3.1 *is* _an_ approximation of pi 🤔 haha

LMAO XD Exactly! My chemistry teacher would be so proud! XD Also, Matt: I'm going to add as many digits as possible for accuracy. Me: ROFL Yeah, that will increase the accuracy by a lot! XD In the end it's still impressive they ended up in the correct order of magnitude XD

Also Matt: Making it worse by trying to make it better by doing it twice.

Annoying wasn't it? Like the point of going to molecules was to get more acurate than a primary school child on square paper... I don't feel we achieved that. But kudos to Matt for presumably rolling with the punches as he saw the experiment unfold. And it's realistic to my experience of Chemistry at GCSE and A-Level and I hated it. All the calculations you do and the experiments never match up like what's even the point...

I think rulers always measure atoms.

Coming up next. Measuring speed of light with a stop watch 😆

It does look more like a molecule model, tho.

Im so glad this was the top comment I just came to comment this. 11:30 for the people that are lost

Lol

"Things to do in the 4th dimension"!

This proves Matt is a 4-dimensional being

I mean, even if you remember that it's roughly 3 is already better than the result of this experiment

the joke ---------------> you -> @@nickpro8116

Ikr you know when you forget the digits of pi and have to whip out your petri dish of oleic acid and measure the molecules with a ruler 🙄

Your teachers would catch you.

22/7

He was embarrassed to show the unsolved Rubik’s cube.

@@stephenbenner4353 🤣🤣

@@stephenbenner4353 On closer inspection, he has TWO unsolved Rubik’s Cubes.

@@miggle2784 Plus The Pentagonal

They're both just made up of a bunch of small cubes.

His bath overflowed, spilling a bunch of water on the floor, so ye, probably.

That must have hurt.

@@niekpauwels9569 No, it was just a very cold bath, thus the "Aghgh... Balls!" comment that Archimedes made...

"Oops...Argh...Balls!" - The Roman soldier who killed Archimedes

You sir, have won the Internet today. Congrats

😂😂😂😂😂😂

*A sphere with a central lens of evaporating pentane.

Would have been interesting to calculate the error of that result. ... probably ±10⁵ 😅

fermi estimation be like

@@rarebeeph1783 literally what I thought of

That made me snort-laugh :)

That would be circling the square.

No that's a physics teacher

POV: you just spent hours working on a single math problem for your homework Math teacher: you forgot that it was negative

It's a Parker cube, so the assumption is valid.

The Mould Circle should also be there.

I knew it would be here somewhere! You have not disappointed the fans.

If it's 3d it's either approximately a cube or a sphere.

A moldy cube

There's already Mould effect

Nah, they drop it on oceans.

LOL!

Actually, I think Exxon (the Valdez spill) is more accurate. BP spilled oil under the water.

"We're sorry"

This reminded me of when Philip Morrison dropped oil on a pond for the PBS documentary Ring of Truth.

I mean, they estimated that the molecules are cubes. And their measurement might not have been extremely precise since he measured the diameter only once. Furthermore, the folic acid isn't going to spread in a perfect circle. But, if the answer was very accurate then that would mean that the molecules are actually cubes. So this experiment doesn't imply that there's anything wrong with avagadro's number. There could be, but this experiment doesn't imply that.

@@thebeerwaisnetwork8024 Woooooooooooooosh.

@@liesdamnlies3372 The OP made a bad joke. There is no woosh to see here.

@@angelmendez-rivera351 I don't see how the WOOSH depends on the arbitrary quality of a joke Are you also going to say my comment is irrelevant because it is 5 months late :)?

@@annyeong5810 I never said anything was irrelevant, so I have no idea why you thought that asking that question was reasonable. Nice strawman, though.

same lol

You watched that Numberphile video too eh

Parker square eh

Sounds like me doing my math homework

@@honorarymancunian7433 i know that from game theory Mario maker possibility vid

Shouldn’t the molecules, assumed to be monolayer and oriented in a manner, be more assumed to be a rectangular prism or such?

@@iantaakalla8180 Only if the "tails" are all up straight; which you could make happen by putting boundaries on the circle to squeeze them together. But since the layer was left allone (so to speak) they DO "flail around" and take up a lot of space. Of course the cube is by no means a precise representation, but the accuracy is still pretty impressive ;-)

I can only assume the numbers they have for the size of the “cube” molecule was originally calculated by another scientist using pi.

Also Steve: the diameter is 8 cm

Astronomer: "Pi is usually 1, but sometimes 10." Accountant: "Pi is 100%." Chef: "Pi is delicious."

You need to define more digits I remember "3.1415926535 *8979323846264338* ..."

Cosmologist: "Pi is not helium or nitrogen so it's metal"

@@wesleymays1931 impressive, I know 102 dp

Despite being an engineer I have pi memorized to 20 digits...

Honestly, I was surprised they ended up between 1 and 10. Why would that essentially one dimensional molecule end up anywhere close to a cube? If I'd have tried this, I'd have floated a small molecule (e.g. methane, ammonia, water) where a cube wouldn't be too bad an approximation. Even better would be a noble gas, but I get that making them liquid is tricky. Added: Or maybe Buckminsterfullerene.

Must be an engineer.

@@SlidellRobotics My choice would have been a circular sheet of Graphene. It is known to be a molecule thick and has a regular structure. No liquid needed.

*ASSUME IT'S A CUBE*

@@OriginalPiMan also know to be expensive and hard to get, plus it's geometry does not resemble that of a square, it is more like tiled hexagons however I did think of graphene when they started talking about the experiment

A very interesting question, actually

they pretty much did. matt had around three significant digits throughout the calculation. adding more would perhaps change the 5 in 3.875, but wouldn't touch the first 2 decimals. the primary source of error was steve's preparation and handling of the solution, as suggested around 7:52.

The thing is, we are using pi to aproximate the avogadro number more precisely (check the attemp to make a 1kg perfect sphere of x metal to calculate better the number of molecules). So funny enough this video uses infinitely precise pi to aproximate pi to 3.875, seems legit XD

Would have been fascinated if they got another measurement besides 8cm and “oops arg balls”

@@calinguga Well... I mean, to me, that 8 cm was probably more like around 7.5. Also, using the cube model was probably a bit off... maybe something like the approximate bounding box of Steve's model, plus 50% to account for Brownian motion (sorry, Steve, I mean "jiggling about" XD).

@@calinguga theoretically possible to get much much closer but doubt you can get to 3 sig figs. Even the most accurate measuring method to get the exact amount of molecules

Food for thought

Well, you can't really know the either exactly. You can say "imagine a circle with radius 5". Yeah but 5 what? There's nothing that you know the length of exactly so you have no exact units, so you can't know anything exactly. If you do count using a unit you don't know as an "exact amount", then you can just say you have a radius of 2 cm and an area of 4 cm^2.pi where cm is whatever you want it to be and cm^2-pi is the EXACT area of a circle with radius 1 cm. /s

It collapses into a little swirly tear drop shape.

@@aienbalosaienbalos4186 The metre is currently defined as the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299 792 458 of a second. So yes you can define it

@@miguel5030 But pi is irrational, so given that the exact value of pi cannot be known it is impossible to convert exactly between radius and area since you have to use pi to do it. I would argue that this principle is accurate.

“Oh no he’s done something completely stupid this year, all math involving circles are canceled until next March”

Does that also change the definition of Pi Day? I'm afraid we won't get a new one next year if it's on the 87th

@@calebharper9567 Calendars obviously need to be updated. I mean, we have changed calendars and timekeeping measurements before.

A Parker Pi

that'll make it a parker pi

MURICA!

Yes, the "oh woops balls" is a measurement of how poorly an experiment is going at any given time. For example, when I was testing how flammable a pile of powdered sugar was, that measures at .1 oh woops balls because absolutely nothing was happening when I put a match to the pile.

@@epauletshark3793 isn't sugar flammable though?

@@shmuels1383 yes, but only when there is enough air around it. I had a pile of powdered sugar, and nothing happened, if the sugar was loosely floating like a dust in the air, it probably would have caused a fireball.

8.ohwhoopsballs cm is accurate to 13 hexavigesimal places.

previous year would have been great as well with the 01:23:45 6/7/89

@@Fasmistic but who wants to be at school in the middle of the night?

*accurate to a molecular level

Nice... that made me laugh (in actual fact) out loud. I got many confused looks.

@Oliolli3, you win the comments. Thank you for that. 😆

No, everyone knows that τ=6 because τ=2π and π=3

@QED Impossible!

@QED im in a proofs class rn and your name gives me ptsd

Impressive how some people finish their work.

This was Matt and Steve’s idea for last years video.... 😉

Is it possible to learn this power?

Next year

Just did it - ~ 3.12245 :D

I counted the squares on his notebook, plugged them into the equation and got 3.1604...

I don't think that's the point

@@gustavoaroeira7329 The aim of this experiment was to calculate pi more accurately than using squares on a notebook

Sure?

I literally just got here from his calendar drifting video

He should post it in the day corresponding to whatever value he gets for pi.

@@gabrielhamoui6504 sure?

@@cadekachelmeier7251 that’s a brilliant idea

Well, at least two.

Why?

@@superneenjaa718 Sooooo many estimations, inferences, and "just do that, and that, and that and BAM! Alpha Centauri is actually an apple." Or something like that.

@@liesdamnlies3372 I'm actually studying data science as my 2nd bachelor course. Hope I don't end up hating it.

@@superneenjaa718 creating solutions to solve complex real life problems is often a messy task. How do you get the right data? What do you even collect? How do you combine and transform the raw data? How should you clean it? What do you do with it? What kind of model? What assumptions are we assuming by using said model, and is our data fit for the model? What biased may we have introduced and how would these affect the results? Does any insight come from the result? How much can we trust it? How do we sell it to management? Etc You're lucky to have a straightforward solution to any of these questions/steps, and dealing with the uncertainties and approximations can feel rather dirty.

@@dexterrity doesn't matter if it's good enough 🙃

lol i've always wondered why they chose to make it a cube. I think it's because the aoe rules allow you to cast a cube around yourself without affecting yourself, which spheres or cylinders don't allow for some reason

@@majorfallacy5926 Probably because cubes fit nicely into the grids that DMs use for dungeon maps. Don't lots of things in D&D have a cubical volume of effect?

@@MattMcIrvin dnd has a lot of different spell shapes like cones, spheres and cylinders that have rules on what squares they affect depending on where they originate (even though everybody i've ever played with makes up their own). Cubes are relatively uncommon with hypnotic pattern being one of the most prevalent in 5e.

​@@majorfallacy5926 Actually since the diagonal movement rules were "simplified" in 5e, the very fabric of D&D geometry has been altered so that several of the other spell shapes are now equivalent to cubes (or at least cuboids), too.

I always treated the cones as square-base pyramids because that meant I didn't need to care about the arc of the circle, I could just think about a triangle against my 2D map grid.

Truth!! And to the one significant figure of the original density value used...

As a chemist it simultaneously ate me up and entertained me.

@@chrissabal7937 Do scientific professionals actually use sig figs? As a university student we always learn about them but never actually make sure we're doing them correctly.

@@joehead4081 I'd be willing to bet it depends on the field of science and applications but honestly I have no clue.

What are you talking about? They carefully put down 8.00 cm diameter. Clearly their top concern was to account very precisely for all possible measurement error.

@@joehead4081 It depends on context. When doing analytical chemistry, absolutely sig figs are crucial -- when doing biochemistry there's typically so much error every step of the way with every component, it's not worth worrying about.

Yes, I also remember doing that experiment, my recollection was it was in Introductory Physical Sciences class, but perhaps it was chemistry.

We do it in our school all the time to get to Avogadro's number!

@@AelwynMr As a matter of interest, what number did you get for Avogadro's constant using this method?

@@Mike-H_UK If you do it really well, you get the correct order of magnitude, no more. Still, I find it amazing to think that you can actually tell anything about the size, mass, and amount of molecules just by measuring a macroscopic volume, a diametre and knowing a chemical formula! PS: Steve's model is wrong, having no -COOH group at one end. It is just because of that that once the drop stops growing you can assume that a single layer was formed: that part is attracted to water much more than it is to the tails of the other molecules, so they *have to* spread in a single layer. Pity they do not make it clear!

@@AelwynMr Thanks. That's about what I'd expect. Still even getting to within the correct order of magnitude is pretty amazing, as you say.

Tell me which buildings... so I can avoid them!

@@3Ppaatt as a tradie I can tell you that the way builders cut corners its probably better not to know

Lol

Better take π² = g = 10 for overall massive simplifications (g = gravity constant)

@@samueldevulder 10^0.5 is actually a pretty good approximation for pi, I'm surprised.

At noon of course.

The 31st of august is better, because pi is (from now on) exactly 31/8.

fun at parties comment: i get the joke but it's not great. by the same logic pi day could as well be on the 141st of march, or the 1415th and so on. so if pi were 3.875(...), we'd stop at the 8th of march, making the posting late. that's the better joke because it's more to the point, it makes less false assumptions. (and it's also already been made in the comments).

I say we should celebrate pi month throughout March.

Yeah and tau is 31/4 so we should celebrate... wait

@@debblez This is why pi is superior to tau

awfully european of you

@@oliviapg Heretic.

Lol.

He calculates pi by counting the number of Parker's squares inside a circle.

It's a Parker circle.

All these squares make a circle!

I came to the comments to boo this very pun.

circling the square!

It's not a pun, it's literally where the word "rounding" comes from.

DON'T TELL ME TO CALM DOWN

@@MonsieurBiga I WONT CALM DOWN AAAAAAAA

haha

It's the most wonderful time of the year!

Today is Wednesday and pi day is Sunday which is the 1st day of NEXT WEEK!

More pi for everyone. I see nothing wrong with that

Call it 4 🤷

Dang! I just said that.......grumble....grumble....early viewers.

2070: Calculating π by consulting a wormhole

In 2061.

@TheLazy0ne and it will result in pi=73

Atoms next year ....

right? when the ruler fell onto the oil and prevented a second measurement, I laughed out loud -- at work.

Ear Buddies, coming direct-to-DVD this summer!

Ear Bud? Isn't that the one about the dog who becomes an ear doctor?

@@vigilantcosmicpenguin8721 it was about the pup that lost his hearing when he saved the kittens from an exploding orphanage.

They have it in the same ear though 🤣

Get himself “canceled,” then make it to 1 million by making bot accounts

Yes, Cool Runnings isn't the movie I would use for an "crushes the competition eventually" comparison.

The friendship crashes and goes up in flames at tied 0.99M subs and he limps over the finish line with utter disregard of the competition

It's a Parker Cube xD

Yeah, lol

It's a small furry animal that spoils putting greens on golf courses We did that experiment in Chemistry and my teacher didn't appreciate the joke so I thought I would try it here. Please vote by clicking like or dislike as you feel about the joke

@@trueriver1950 Then molar mass = 100 gr +/- 50, molar concentration = # moles / putting green molar fraction is when you use your spade... no, I'm not going to elaborate on that one.

Well the hypercube is the more cubie cube if you ask me. ^_^

That's just as much a cube as any other cube. Although as I learned in mathematics: both are spheres.

a unit circle area is pi*1^2 = 3.14 a unit square is 2^2 = 4 difference is pi/4 = 78,5% explains some of the error?

@@diynevala The error you're talking about applies to using 1 square to estimate the area of the circle; they used quadrillions of squares. Also why does your unit square have a side length of 2 rather than 1? It just occurred to me that your comment might be satire, but I'm gonna post this anyway lol

@@schizophrenicenthusiast I should not have said UNIT square. I meant "a square with same width." A unit circle has a radius of 1, therefore a diameter (width) of 2. Equally wide square has side length of 2, area of 4. I am thinking about the actual molecules assumed to be circles (or possibly hexagons) - I have no idea how one, two, seven or hundred molecules are standing side by side - but I suspect that they are definitely not organized just along X and Y -axis, few things in nature are squares.

there is some truth to the original comment, and y'all are thinking about circle close packing, so here's a copy-and-paste of another more detailed comment i left: first, alternative packing is not applicable. they calculated the number of molecules (directly from the volume of oleic acid, without making any assumptions), then divided the volume of oleic acid by the number of molecules, obtaining the average space a molecule takes up - this is to say, they assumed perfect packing, 100% filled space. the shape of this molecular space could indeed be many things, for example thin vertical square prisms; if the ratio of side to height of such a shape is 1:10 you'd get pi=4.297. in absence of detailed knowledge about the molecules, the cube is the shape that makes the least assumptions. what they did next is calculate the total area of the circle by finding the top-viewed area of the (cubic) molecules (of now known volume) and multiplying that by the number of molecules. so second, if molecules were (smaller area) circles, you could only get that 21% unused space back by smushing them down to squares again, which is unfair as you've simply made them smaller on no grounds. what you're probably thinking about is square vs hexagonal close packing of circles, which have a filled space parameter of 78.5% vs 90.7%. if better packing were an option (which again it isn't), going from square to hexagonal would decrease the unused space, hence the area calculated, hence pi, though by only around 12%. at the end of the experiment they solved the circle area equation for pi, having calculated the area and measured the radius. my third point is then that any calculation involving circles or spheres for molecules (including your 78.5%) needs some value of pi, which is assumed unknown. is such an equation solvable if the unknown is on both sides? i don't know because there is no such equation because it doesn't make sense. in conclusion, there's nothing wrong with the math, the main source of error is probably the experiment itself, i.e. steve's handling of the solution (measuring, mixing, dripping), which is to be expected, as they only did the experiment once on a small scale. measuring the radius sure was janky as well but the error couldn't have been more than say 2-3%, which corresponds to about 5% for the final result. all things considered it ended up being a pretty good estimation.

@@calinguga I can agree with all that - I am not an expert on any of these fields. Having these huge (amount of molecules) and tiny (their size) numbers calculated near pi is amazing, as errors could pile up. They have these molecule mock-ups where you can identify every atom in the molecule, but it is very seldom we see multiple molecules simulated as an area or volume.

3,205891795 so far

although he did 2 videos in 2015 so idk if both of them count as pi day calculations

it's a very slowly converging infinite series,

Assume the Vatican is a circle. Walk around it and through it

Those are some big atoms!

They are making some HUGE assumptions about the molecular packing density in a thin film. (as lampshaded by all the just "assume it's a cube") I'm quite surprised they were in the correct order of magnitude, nevermind having the first digit right.

...and 42 digits to measure to within the radius of the smallest atomic nucleus. Another reason 42 is The Answer

Just a tad.

Downloaded the video in case he takes it down.

"it's Pi day, this week"

Nope! Pi day is in fact "this week", as stated in the video

It's a parker release date

Would you mind posting the results for those of us who get off on these sorts of things?

😂😂