Why isn't the Universe random?

[@veosotano]

Dude you deserve a Nobel price in the art of "explaining things"

[@sirmeowthelibrarycat]

Miro Keller 🌟 Yes! You have correctly spelled ‘Nobel’✅

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

Ignoble 2018 for Science Asylum.

[@icelsikupingmerah]

Yes Nobel PRice

[@m_i_g_5108]

@@sirmeowthelibrarycat Noble 😂

[@dimtgco1428]

Nooooooo. They should let this guy be the one who decides who gets it.......

[@TheCimbrianBull]

This channel probably deserves a random number of extra subscribers!

[@baganatube]

That's for sure.

[@ahlamhy]

It deserves a googol number of subscribers

[@Lucky10279]

You should specify a random _positive_ number or he could _lose_ subscribers. I know, I know, I'm being pedantic. 😁

[@funkysagancat3295]

@@Lucky10279 It would be at least interesting if he was not talking about integers, maybe he was talking about 1/2 a subscriber or even an irrational numbers or even a complex one. The next thing you see is a channel with a nunber of subscribers only representable with octonions

[@carlwillows]

random reply...

[@bitterlemonboy]

"If you perform an experiment a large amount of times, the result will be equal to the expectation." Perseverance in a nutshell

[@MrWeareone777]

Very true. So I wonder how that works with Lotto numbers.

[@carlwillows]

@@MrWeareone777 There was an infomercial in the 90's...

[@TheFerdi265]

@@MrWeareone777 the expected value of playing lotto is pretty low: expected = (-cost)*(1 - winprobability) + (payout - cost)*winprobability the win probability for lotto (the '6 of 45' variant) is around 1/14000000; the price of a ticket where I live is 1.20€; the payout for this is at least 1 million € where I live (with the possibility for more when there's a jackpot) so the expected value of lotto where I live is losing 1.12€ each time you play. if you play an infinite number of times, your outcomes will approach the expected outcome - and you will most likely be broke.

[@muhammadsiddiqui2244]

Yes

[@alejrandom6592]

Underrated comment

[@45HatesOurVets]

Most of the time I have NO IDEA what your talking about but I LOVE listening to you! Thank you...more videos please!

[@sylfthesoundyoulongfor8363]

The beauty of an explanation by someone passionnate of his topics becoming a chill sound stéréo xD

[@earlesteinberg5647]

Statistics 201 explained intuitively. Leaving the math out, this was well explained. Always love your videos.

[@KibyNykraft]

There is problem here. What do we mean by probability, and why does it have anything to do directly with predictable tendency anyway? If the probability is 50-50 for one toss, how can it decrease for the next toss? The video says that the chance for 10 times "heads" or ten times "tails" in a row is very small. OK. I get the point but if that was true, the coin must have had a certain interest in varying its results. Well it is not alive so.... In reality the probability is always 50-50 before every toss, thus it has to be 50-50 also for ten times tails... If it is 50-50 for one of the sides, there is no special desire anywhere to bring it to any bias of which landing it gets. Every toss is irrelevant to the old tosses. Now : That is just the probability. But like he says, there are many factors involved. Then he doesnt explain that properly. But this is important. IF we throw the coin just slightly different next time, we have lessened the chance of getting the same as the previous toss. So the variation must occur as a default, into normal distribution. Now if we could throw it exactly the same way every time perfectly ,the result would always be the same. But the probability would be 50-50 regardless. Let ut think about something very predictable. The Moon's orbit around the Earth. What is the probability that it is also in orbit tomorrow? It is a yes or no answer. 50-50- But the Moon doesnt care about our stats. It is there anyway, very much it takes to drag it away

[@Blackwing2345635]

@@KibyNykraft yes, it is 50-50 for every single toss, but the low probabality of several same results in a row is just becuase of numbers. It may be helpfull to think about it this way - there is only one possibility for 10 tails in a row out of 1024, but for 5 tails and 5 eagles - 252 variations out of 1024 possible states. But if you also consider exact order of results (say T-E-T-E-T-E-T-E-T-E) - it has the same probability, as all tails. About tossing a coin not being a true random - again, that's completely true, but number of variables out of our control is so big, and many of them change so frequently, that this pseudo-random is actually pretty close to a true random. If we could froze the atmoshpere, the thing we toss a coin with, the surface coin hits, and coin itself to an absolute 0, have a perfect control over tossing process, insure that surface the coin hits and the coin itself have the same properties along themselves, etc. we would be able to toss it the way we want guaranteed. Or the other way around - if we knew ALL the parameters involved throughout the process of tossing a coin - we would be able to predict outcome. And actually in some experiments and applications it is exactly what is done (exept not absolute zero, but as close as possible), but usually it is about microscopic scale, because we are simply unable to freeze or read those parameters in a macroscopic scale.

[@patw]

I just discovered these videos. Please don’t stop making them; they are the clearest and most informative I have ever seen!

[@kovanovsky2233]

"While I could have gotten, say, 10 heads, that's not very likely." - Nick Lucid 2018

[@-KillaWatt-]

I really appreciate the work you do. My son and I enjoy your episodes and we alway look forward to watching new videos. It's hard to get kids into science but you make it easier. Thanks a lot. P.s. Donation coming your way.

[@ScienceAsylum]

It's great to hear about parents getting their kids into science.

[@MrWeareone777]

The Science Asylum My son (11years old) always listens to you, NDT on Star Talk and Brian Green. I think he wants to invent a time machine by the time he's 15.

[@Rugbystu14]

Nick, this video was phenomenal, honestly. It might also be the fact that I'm completely baffled by quantum mechanics and how it works. I was thinking about this actual subject for quite a while because of what Einstein said to Bohr about him liking to think that the moon is still there when he looks. Like if the stuff that were made from have such properties of being in multiple places at once or disappearing and re-appearing in a different place, the why don't we behave like that. But this video actually helped me understand better the situation and the mechanics (pun intended) behind it. Cheers for that, my friend! Keep up the good work.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Glad I could help :-)

[@mindyourbusiness5423]

I bet this is so EASY to understand for everybody, you can't say this isn't perfectly explained, great video, that's 1+ subscriber.

[@baptistebauer99]

Well shit You basically made a great introduction to statistical concepts, but while explaining why classical physics and quantum physics are based on opposite facts... (random vs predictable) This is amazing... you are amazing. You really have talent dude...

[@AranyakGhosal]

Baptiste Bauer your comment too, bro! 👍

[@BenjaminCronce]

I think you mean how emergent properties can be.... polar... opposite of the underlying rules. If you keep thinking about this, you might find yourself going in circles and may go a little crazy. But that's ok, so I'm told.

[@sirmeowthelibrarycat]

Baptiste Bauer 😡 Wrong in any and every possible universe! This video was not about faeces at all, well or not! You must try harder to grow up and act as an adult, and not a turd! Have a nice day at the sewage farm . . .

[@baptistebauer99]

Sir Meow The Library Cat Ok, I will try to act as an adult, and instead of getting angry, I will ask if you would mind to be more specific about how wrong my comment is, and why ... ? 😶

[@mohinderjitaujla6245]

Baptiste Bauer …Buddy , answer to your Question lies in the **survival of the fittest **…theory...Only one Sperm enters the egg , out of millions why……??…JagtarSinghAujla

[@contatophbio9080]

I analysed that your channel is one of the top in the world... you have less them 0,2% dislikes... it is the lower i ever saw. And almost 10% of the viewers gave a thumbs up! Congratulations and thank you again for the excellent work!

[@therealallanjohnson]

Well, that was random... and yet predictably excellent! You're crazy awesome!!

[@SvenSchumacher]

Great as always! Not only the knowledge you transmit but the way you make your videos funny at the same time!

[@KostasAdamos]

The best explanation I have heard yet! Thanks!

[@circuitboardsushi]

Good thing you didn't use quarters, those have 50 states. Joking aside, does this mean that the classical macroscopic world is deterministic?

[@ScienceAsylum]

Ha!!

[@clieding]

No, but it gets ridiculously close! When god at first had made only a few quantum particles he/she/it had no idea what was likely to happen next 🤹🏻‍♂️. Now its just like: “Ho-hum ... just another Gaussian curve ... “ 🎰 “Come on, come on... Baby needs a new pair of shoes! 🎲🎲. 🕺👯‍♀️👯‍♀️”

[@controlequebrado4455]

my phone just fased through my hand. So I guess no. Maybe...

[@suesheification]

Yes it is

[@DrBishopWalter]

The chaos theory is purely deterministic. It studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initials conditions. The chaos theory says that the apparent randomness of a chaotic system (like the weather for example) is made of patterns, repetition, loops, fractals and so on. All of these are the consequence (or sensitive dependence to be precise) of what happened after the initial condition of that system. In other words, that "paradoxal" behavior is know as deterministic chaos. However, the deterministic nature of these systems made them unpredictable, because we can't know the initials conditions with an infinite precision. "Subtil is Nature, but mischievous it isn't"

[@kajmal]

As an amateur historian, I'm thrilled that you wrote a history text, even if I could never hope to understand it.. Love your videos!

[@no_more_free_nicks]

You can understand it! It is not so difficult. It is just the matter of giving it some time an interest. You just decided to put your energy into different things.

[@neurotransmissions]

So you’re saying there’s a chance! Haha, great video!

[@ScienceAsylum]

Thanks! P.S. You were the featured comment in the end credits :-)

[@neurotransmissions]

The Science Asylum Oh wow! I missed that! I’m honored! Yeah, the universe edge is still messing me up. Despite understanding it conceptually, realistically my mind is blown. 😝

[@photondance]

HA! I just watched that clip, about ten minutes ago! 😂 (obligatory hyperbolic emoji)

[@bradmiller1574]

Neuro Transmissions One of my favorite quotes of all time. Dumb and Dumber is a brilliant classic.

[@MarceloRobertoJimenez]

If possible in a next video, please explore the relation between spin and polarization. One is a quantum property, the other is a classical property. Congratulations, this is the first time I see someone explicitly say that polarization is a quantum superposition of spin.

[@raidmefti6082]

Hearing you explain the link between classical physics and quantum ones without any equation of any kind but rather with simply one penny was ... amazing

[@micahcease4617]

Good explanation. That was way more simple than it should of been.

[@Mikey-mike]

Good one. Your explanation of the double split was good using the statement concerning wave questions and knowledge.

[@LB-js5ij]

great video, i ve been looking into quantum mechanics for a while now and just this cleared so many things in my head, thank you

[@ScienceAsylum]

You're welcome!

[@The_Omegaman]

Please post a part two if you have more to say. This was a great video.

[@TheJohnblyth]

So good. Almost every topic you’ve looked at has given me new exciting insights.Thanks, Nick.

[@cleitonoliveira932]

Please make a video about emergent properties. This video is somewhat about how the classical-physics-universe is an emergent property of a weirder world, but literally NOBODY explains about this thing more than the very basics.

[@juleskurianmathew1983]

You explained how randomness transitions into predictability in a simple clear way!!

[@victherocker]

my mind was already blown when I got notif from your video

[@manansanjaysahni2895]

You are awesome sir. Really it's only you who sparked the interest in me for quantum physics.

[@thestalost8486]

manan sahni I've always loved the quantum physics... for me he is the one who opened my eyes for astrophysics... and now I don't know which one I like the most 😁

[@manansanjaysahni2895]

Well considering that i am just a school student, it means a lot to me

[@thestalost8486]

manan sahni me too man... me too...

[@manansanjaysahni2895]

Tibi Manasia nice to talk to you pal😃😃

[@MrWeareone777]

Same, and Brian Greene

[@MrMineHeads.]

I can seriously never get enough of your videos.

[@feynstein1004]

I think the word unpredictable is a bit misunderstood. People generally tend it to mean "anything is possible", which of course, isn't a thing. The set of events for "anything" is infinite. But we are bound by causality, which reduces that infinite set to a finite one. So unpredictable actually means "a certain number of events is possible". The classical world seems to be an emergent property, as stated in the video.

[@altrag]

I don't think most people understand it to mean "anything" is possible. If you flip a penny, its not ever going to be a quarter when it lands and nobody on the planet would expect it to, outside of insane drug trips or severe mental disabilities. Its the statistics that people don't understand. It seems to be a hard concept to grasp that an unpredictable event (such as a coin toss) repeated enough times leads to a statistically predictable result. And its a weird intuition break. People seem to think that a graph of all 1000-toss "games" should have an equal chance of being all heads, all tails or 50/50, even though they would never expect to actually roll an all-heads game. Of course when you point that out to them and they actually think about it, most people realize right away that "oh yeah the all-heads is probably not ever going to happen" but its difficult to apply that new understanding to problems that appear on the surface to be unrelated to coin flipping (such as how light bounces off mirrors, or how sunglasses work.) And they get really confused again when you introduced biased expectation values (ie: not a 50/50 coin flip but say an 80/20 unbalanced coin.) I don't exactly blame them. A lot of statistics _is_ unintuitive and weird, even after you've studied it for a bit.

[@feynstein1004]

+altrag I was referring to people's notion of the quantum world but you make a good point.

[@sylfthesoundyoulongfor8363]

@@feynstein1004 then your point is invalide. Most natural quantum system have infinite number of possibities (position energy, momentum, and more complicated stuff) Théere is even an i terpretation. Of Quantum physics, wich one is cohérent with the maths, that says there are infinite universe for each résults possible of every combination. Why do you bring thé principle of causalité into that ?

[@anitb1874]

This video also cleared the concept of entropy... using a very easy everyday phenomena...

[@kostantinos2297]

As always, like given before the video even started. You have earned it, great job. I really hope I can become a patreon of yours in the future. *You should do a video on your craziest physics jokes. I know you want it.

[@bytefu]

My favourite one is from the most recent episode of PBS Space Time:A physicist sees a guy standing on the edge of the rooftop and shouts: "Don't do it, you have so much potential!"

[@kostantinos2297]

Artem Borisovskiy Nice one, I know it slightly differently; "My physics teacher said I had potential. Then he pushed me off the window."

[@andreyassa7638]

Thanks to these laws we're able to watch this informative and entertaining video ;-). Thanks for another great video, Nick!

[@illogicmath]

Just one adjective for your video BRILLIANT!

[@StoneAndersonStudio]

Your coin as a quantum superposition analogy was really awesome and helpful for me. Thank you!

Wow. I understood now "degree of freedom" and probability. This is the transition between classical and quantum physics.

[@l034kwoeski4]

Love your channel man, keep doing your thing :D

[@1TakoyakiStore]

Probably your deepest video to date yet. Gonna watch this a few times so that I'm understanding things clearly. Congrats btw this doesn't happen a lot. Lol Also I would like to see you tackle shock dynamics in a video. I've been intrigued by it ever since the great Scott Manley mentioned it in one of his videos on Nuclear developments between Russia and the United States.

[@andrescalvo4386]

I am not learning new stuff I am looking it different. I really enjoy how you explain, you are amazing!!! You make topics that i've been using for years look like something new and you really help to show how amazing they are!! I would have loved learning from you from the beginning, that would have made everything easier and fun. Thanks for this, you really are entertaining and it is very helpful for humanity to understand a little better. Again thank you!!!!

[@TheEgg185]

The thing I don't like about the law of probability is that it never says something is impossible, just highly unlikely. Yet, I know damn well that a penny won't land on heads 100 times in a row no matter how many times you try.

[@TheEgg185]

@UCN7MU4ki61SBlPvRgviyXDQ The bigger the number, the closer it gets to 50/50. Like 2,576,000 vs 2,578,000. That's a difference of 2,000, but compared to such a large number, it's negligible. Edit: Nevermind 50/50. When you do the math it will come out to 50%.

[@Badcode0101]

I love you MAN..you make it so easy to understand!

[@Dzeroed]

You really are one of the best Science channels, up there with the likes of (and by no means only these guys, sorry if I missed people out- I watch a lot of Science!) Smarter Every Day, Cody's Lab, In a Nutshell and Vsauce. I am in the process of adding new Crazies!

[@ScienceAsylum]

Thanks!

[@iamjimgroth]

I think he's the best of the sciencetubers.

[@sahibjot01]

YOU MISSED THE LORD OF SCIENCE CHANNELS ..*drumroll* pbs SPACE TIME !!!

[@maggsgorilla]

awesome again! I was really looking forward to this. I'm already looking forward to your next video!

[@petslittleworld]

Wow that was a fantastic video, If I had science teachers like you in my childhood I would have taken up science as my career.

[@ForestValleyGame]

I think this is one of the most important videos related to the quantum physics. Now I can better imagine why randomness in microscopic scale leads to predictible environment in macroscopic scale.

[@diegopescia9602]

Getting deeper on this, a video on wave function collapse would be great. I still find it hard to understand... if it could be understandable in some way :P Great video as always!

[@amihart9269]

It's hard to understand because it's not real. The wave function does not physically exist. You only see the exact probability distributions the wave function describes with large numbers of particles, in the literature called ensembles. Each particle individually moves in a way where if you sum up their movement over ensembles you end up with a distribution that is related to the wave function, and so you can even use the wave function to predict how an individual particle will behave, not with certainty but with a probability distribution. But, again, the wave function doesn't exist, it's like saying because the coin has a distribution of being 50% heads and 50% tails when you flip it a billion times, that means there must be some abstract 50%-headness and 50%-tailness object that determines the outcome that "collapses" when you actually make a flip. It doesn't, there is nothing collapsing because there is no actual physical wave function.

[@Jwine95]

I really wish I had you for a graduate professor because in every video I see the amount of effort it takes you to reel in the technical talk the majority of the public is incapable of comprehending (im the physics PhD student that always annoys you in the comments). You have an uncanny ability to convert complex topics into English which I respect a lot. If you ever find yourself with free time and want to talk a little more math I'm to nerdy to pass up on cosmology / quantum mechanics 😎

[@ScienceAsylum]

Thanks for appreciating the hard work.

[@manikdas1429]

That was awesome..I want more

[@apple54345]

That's what she said.

[@no_more_free_nicks]

Yeah, me too. He nailed the subject.

[@carlosreyes5139]

Awesome, I really love your explanations.

[@barakhalla5338]

I'm happy that probability brought me to this wonderful channel!

[@joelechenique5480]

Is life the cause of the determinism? because, for what i understand, LLN happens because there are systems (humans, animals, etc) measuring and collapsing the possibilities. That means that, an universe with nobody alive measuring it, would be a big quantum place where everything is happening forever... or something like that. BTW, great video.

[@vitaly2432]

The act of measurement in QM doesn't have anything to do with consciousness. Measurement is just an interaction between different quantum systems. Any two particles interacting with each other are "measuring" each other. A universe without conscious beings would be indistinguishable from a universe with them in it.

[@vitaly2432]

More specifically, it's an interaction during which information is conveyed. But I don't know about it enough to give you any concrete examples. You can read this to learn more: www.askamathematician.com/2011/06/q-what-is-a-measurement-in-quantum-mechanics/

[@ScienceAsylum]

What Vitaly Kalashnikov said: _"The act of measurement in QM doesn't have anything to do with consciousness."_

[@guest_informant]

A great video. A really clear explanation of order from chaos. Thanks.

[@cruelpulse]

Being a bit familiar with chaos theory I thought this video was very enlightening. For some reason I never looked at classical physics as an emergent system stemming from quantum physics. But now that I think about it, it feels obvious. The "chaos" and unpredictability of quantum physics leads to "orderly" and predictable classical physics, simply because of the epic volume of quantum physics events.

[@MidnaFeetEnjoyer]

By the way, I dunno how popular or old this conclusion, but I've made it for myself that there is no randomness in the universe. Everything is consequential. What we call 'randomness' is only our interpretation of the things we can't measure accurately or don't have the means to measure at all. Just as you said, that when we throw a penny, there are a lot of things to consider. -The strength and work of every piece of muscle used in your hand (as well as mass, size, densinty etc of the penny, even what is "drawn" on it) -finger acceleration while catapulting the penny -everything related to position, relative to the earth and insignificant sources of gravity (such as your body) -hand position relative to where the penny was launched when it lands on your hand, that determines how far/long the coin was airborn -many other contact factors that determined the rotation speed of the coin -even friction between your hand and the penny as you're launching it and so on and so on and I don't doubt there are many ways to classify and interpretate this list and add more things. So really absolutely everything has math to it, but we simply don't do it, so from our *point of view* it's random on what side it falls. But randomness doesn't exist in nature, it's just we're ignorant. I strongly believe that this also applies to the uncertainty principle and generally all physics that we understand and don't understand. I strongly believe there are many things to consider about photons, just as there is to flipping the penny that I crudely listed. It's just that our means of measurement and perception hit their (current) limits when it comes to understanding photons, electrons and other things like that. Like how we can't imagine how to realistically travel back in time or teleport ourselves (even though some of the math is there, I'm sure.. maybe a bad analogy). What do you think?

[@anitb1874]

Best video ...blew my mind

[@avael2451]

"There was so much I wanted to talk about in this video I really to to rein myself in" If that's more for the sake of being concise than running into time constraints I'd love to hear more on this topic- always find myself having more (though much more sensible) questions when I finish a video compared to when I start it. Not that it's a bad thing at all, I like pushing the limits of my understanding and seeing where the cracks are.

[@damejelyas]

Thanks man and it was really good video.

[@charitsfachrurizalkusumara5775]

Some for reason I'm reminded of the electrons that look random when thrown alone, but form a wave pattern when thrown many times

[@jonnomonodesu]

Surely being three dimensional a coin has three potential states, and would need to be two dimensional to only have two states. Courtesy of pedantry-r-us.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Valid point! The third state (landing on it's edge) is very difficult for a US penny, but not as uncommon as you might think for a US nickel (because they're so thick).

[@oysteinsoreide4323]

Nathan Baxter But what is the probability of the coin landing and stopping on the edge? I guess that when a coin is flipped its very unlikely. It's even unlikely if you drop a coin from 20 cm height with the edge towards the table.

[@jonnomonodesu]

Googled before posting...for a nickle (that's American for 'bigger than a cent'), it's 1 in 6000 I'll shut up now before the pitchforks and torches start being handed around :)

[@guest_informant]

If you've not seen it Matt Parker's latest project is trying to establish the "exact" dimensions of a coin which would land 1/3 Heads 1/3 Edge 1/3 Tails kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y6LUgX6BhLpgr7s

[@oysteinsoreide4323]

Guest Informant That coin would not look like a coin.

[@MattEssex33]

Love it when that background music kicks in and you go to town on the subject ;)

[@culwin]

Can we get a fresh track from DJ ZigZag? Upload it to SoundCloud!

[@rasanmar18]

Impressive!!! Awesome!!! You are definitely my hero! I had heard tones of times that quantum theory is a statistical theory and that the predictability in the macroscopic scale of the universe was due to that scale, thus failing to explain the point. But how you have used the analogy of the flipping coin and the central limit theorem without even naming it, it's outstanding. Believe me, you are not even conscious about what you achieve in every video and how important it is for science. Congratulations! Keep on!

[@finitewehosh6542]

In the words of John Locke "I think we're gonna need to watch that again."

[@shivamaryajha1783]

Sir, Pleeeaase do a video on why satellites revolve in an elliptical path around their respective stars and not in a circular one. The ellipse makes the dynamics so tricky. It does deserves shedding some light on it .

[@ScienceAsylum]

This would be a great topic to do when I need a break for all these difficult stuff.

[@HB-jf6yq]

Gosh i love entropy

[@clieding]

You won’t love it so much when you reach my age!

[@MonteiroLucas]

As always, a superb video!!!!!

[@gary_dslr2615]

So with a powerful enough super quantum computer, we could predict everything...so we are in a simulation, haha !! Top stuff nick as always 😎

[@samarthsai9530]

I was wondering about this lately. Thank you.

[@MrKrack-ri8ix]

Hey Nick! Are you a physicist?

[@ScienceAsylum]

Yep!

[@computerkopman123]

This video is by far the best explanation for this

[@Hunar1997]

Is it okey to be very crazy? 😕

[@rottencheese733]

hunar omer a little

[@borissman]

Only in the science asylum

[@Fletchlie]

Would being very crazy only a little of the time be only a little bit crazy in total?

[@CCumva]

Quantum stuff never felt so natural and intuitive. Exceptional explanation!

[@gavrielpapas773]

Your wife and you were flipping coins: 493:501?! That's 994 flipping altogether, are you trying to deceive us?

[@ScienceAsylum]

It's unfortunate that a 7 looks like a 1 if written sloppily.

[@clieding]

Shoot! I had hoped that six had landed on their edges.

[@omkarbansode6305]

Sir your video gives us lot of knowledge and also some enjoyment👍

[@dizzyshmizzy2624]

Everyone who watches this video will probably subscribe.

[@abhik294]

Superb analogy

[@BillDeWitt]

Well... that was pretty random....

[@lukewright5544]

I'm 40 second into the clip and already willing to hit the like button :D

[@bradmiller1574]

Excellent, I’ve never heard of the law of large numbers. Thanks.

[@maxpercer7119]

Individual particles are random, but the aggregate particles as a whole is not random. What is interesting is how (probabilistically) predictable behavior can emerge from fundamentally random individual events. i think that is the law of large numbers.

[@wpmorel]

Genius at choosing the right level and mixing in humour. Thank you!

[@kit2770]

As a person with no math background whatsoever, the fact that a human body is comprised of about 10 to the 29th power particles while the Earth, something that is obviously waaay larger than a single person, is 10 to the 52nd power is a good reminder/demonstration of how quickly values add up when using exponents. I would've guessed that the exponent for Earth would've been larger in comparison with the other number.

[@davidcartier966]

Wonderful explanation

[@bulldog5305]

How does this channel not have more subs?! I guess the probability of this must be extremely rare!

[@JorgeFalconOnline]

Loving your vids 😎👍

[@sirsia1st]

oh wow! thanks for answering my polarization question for a few weeks back! I had misunderstood how polarized glasses were made thinking they were only VERY long slits of thinly separated parallel polymer molecules that blocked perpendicularly "waving" light but i could see how handiness could be used as a polarize. however, now i'm confused how they make polymers that block the opposite handiness.

[@trippinluv]

Excellent! I stumbled across your vids a few months ago and they are all pretty amazing but this one put me over the edge. I am getting on Patreon and becoming a supporting crazy tonight! Looking forward to watching your star continue to rise.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Thank you so much!

[@altrag]

I always liked the fact that we're all a _little_ bit blurry on a fundamental level, since the particles that make up us don't have definite position no matter how still we sit.

[@pleappleappleap]

Coins have an infinite number of states called "edge", which are each infinitesimally likely.

[@BattleBunny1979]

this never showed up in my inbox :-( I checked your channel as I was getting withdrawal symptoms. yay a video!

[@aliizadi8506]

wow! you've been answering one of my principle questions in a very simple way :) Thanks a lot. keep on passionately

[@Bpaynes]

I like that you take things that popular culture misrepresents and set the record straight about them

[@gusngregg5127]

Basically, since you are working with large groups of things, they tend to cancel most each others fredom of movement, making them behave in a predictable way

[@00crashtest]

Okay, got it: Classical physics is secretly statistical laws, and that uncertainty is the confidence limits from the law of large numbers of total randomness of elementary particles.

[@nunyabisnass1141]

I had a moment where I was thinking about the relevance of how the title question was asked: why isnt the universe random, or why the universe isn't random. Both work for the content of the video, but I was thinking that without pragmatic degree of deterministic certainty, where it was biased toward randomness even slightly, it would be difficult to have measurable states.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Yeah, I guess "isnt" and "is" would have both worked... huh...

[@nunyabisnass1141]

The Science Asylum well the reason i guess i brought it up was, or why i thought of it in that way is because of some of the philosophical controversy around determinism and what a coherent definition for something to exist is. Ive been around around the debate circle of this area a few times, and it just seems like an inevitable topic for discussion. I dont intend you involve you in it, so i wont expand on this musing much more.

[@cruelpulse]

I was thinking about this sort of thing as well. The fact that we can philosophically categorize things means sufficient order exists in the universe to say it's not random. There's a bit of a "I think therefore I am" thing going on. But that's not what Lucid is getting at. He's explaining the emergence of non-randomness, while I'm just proving non-randomness exists.

[@anon9579]

I don't like determinism because i don't like the idea that things couldn't have happened differently

[@nachannachle2706]

Randomness = (Probability + predictive power) * chaos? Sounds like a BIG numbers game... Ps: Your Nerd Clone's appearance was pricelessly funny :). Ps2: Could you do a series on Quantum Gravity? (String, Causal sets, etc...) I mean, if you have some time...some day... :)

[@Aediwen]

I think Nerd Clone is my favorite. He's the kinda guy I could hang out with. Another great video.

[@carlwillows]

2:55 one and two!!! you're blowing my mind...

[@carlwillows]

Seriously though, great video!

[@usmcfutball]

One of your best! My bodily supply of quantum particles tallied a 97.6% approval rate for this vid. Please keep up the fine work.

[@chcisback3]

I wish we had school teachers like you. Learning would be sooooo much fun. Cheers. ^_^