What do LEGO bricks and celestial bodies have in common?

[@spencerharris7671]

I think something worth mentioning is that a lot of celestial bodies are really just collections of many smaller objects. For example, galaxies are collections of millions of star systems. Each star probably has a few planets. I wonder if how we classify what an “object” is affects the trend, or even causes it

[@physicsforthebirds]

I'm glad you mentioned that! I actually cut a section where I talked about that. The problem is especially hard when we talk about nebulas (is a dust particle one "thing"?), but the researchers ignored that. They may have double or triple counted many objects.

[@RaquelFoster]

All classification discussions will eventually lead you to a 45-minute VSauce video called What Is A Universe?

[@hexeddecimals]

​@@RaquelFoster "Do Chairs Exist?" is also relevant here

[@homeonegreen9]

This is why philosophy is important, in particular the discipline of asking what is the nature of a thing and getting good definitions from that questioning. Also epistemology to define how we know a thing. Physics is meant to be paired with metaphysics.

[@mr-redify]

I thought the same; was wondering how you could count Systems when you count objects alone

[@antipoti]

I don't think this is by any design at LEGO, it would also be very hard to make sets with a "forced" distribution. I think it's a naturally arising property from the way things build up. I mean, you can only have a few big pieces (base blocks, big custom monoblocks, etc), while you need a ton of tiny things to fill the gaps, connect blocks, add decoration, and so on. This is why it's so amazing, I think this arises organically.

[@ViKODiN_]

Prime numbers play a role too I believe. The composite-ability of the world. There’s even been a couple videos recently on tiles and the history of these geometries in sacred religious temples. Iirc isn’t this curve similar to Pareto distribution?

[@leftysheppey]

I think it also just has to do with the nature of the toy. Too many tiny pieces would be difficult to build. Too many big pieces would be boring. It's not necessarily something the designers would think about, but it's something somebody would think about before retail

[@andreworders7305]

What he said

[@jadegecko]

I wonder if it's like Benford's law in some way, too.

[@MatthewsPersonal]

exactly. this feels incredibly intuitive that of course this would be a logarithmic distribution.

[@marcelo8405]

I'm a video game designer and when I make levels, adding clutter to the environments follows the same curve of object sizes for the map to feel "Right" It might be some sort of fractal pattern that we all have a deep intuitive understanding of, that's why the legos follow the same rule. Maybe even our bodies follow the same rule: bone sizes vs quantity; it could potentially apply to anything.

[@DarkAngelEU]

Someone should count the objects in Katamari levels and see what the exponent is lol

[@ivanjermakov]

I wonder if it has something to do with Weber-Fechner law - our senses are more logarithmic than linear.

[@szczypawa]

I don't think this curve shows anything about the nature of the universe but about how we see/label things. There are no hard rules in the universe about when something counts as a new separate thing, except for maybe the tiniest particles that make up the fabric of reality. At certain points our brain decides that a collection of smaller things or different characteristics is worth distinguishing as a new separate thing, giving it a name and so on. This experiment shows that there is an interesting curve in how we do it. It makes total sense that the designers of lego bricks would feel the need to create bricks at sizes where our brains like to distinguish things as separate or you would feel the need to place objects on the map like that. Pretty cool.

[@stewieg5609]

Humans have a preference for environments that are between 1.3-1.5 fractal dimensionality. So I think you may likely be right about that. Maybe Gaussian clutter?

[@user-ye6je1dk8x]

i had something similar in mind. what if it's some sort of natural distribution that we're instinctually accustomed to and that often appears in nature?

[@ryankrumenauer2806]

Guess I'm a bird because the youtube algorithm decided this video was for me

[@real_shubham01]

same bro

[@WindsorMason]

Welcome to the flock

[@akakaptin6382]

Birds of a feather.. 😅

[@akakaptin6382]

Chirp chirp!!

[@MsDogleaf]

Yea this cool

[@_AlexGarcia_]

Astrophysicist here, I'm getting my Ph.D. studying galaxy formation/evolution. I wanna start out and say, I really enjoyed the video! It's really interesting to think about how mass is distributed in the Universe and if the same laws of nature that apply to galaxy clusters apply to LEGOs :). First is in regards to the initial mass function (IMF, as we typically call the mass function for stars) you describe here. Indeed the Salpeter (1955) IMF is a power law with an index of -2.35. However, more recently increasingly complex IMFs are used to describe the distribution of stellar masses of stars (see, e.g., Kroupa 2001 or Chabrier 2003) which are more than just a power law. These distributions are more like log-normal distributions, they have a plateau and turn over at lower masses. Even further than "Is it a power law?" it's actually a super open question in Astrophysics right now whether the IMF has evolved throughout the lifetime of the Universe. Second (sort of related), I think your intuition about gravity and the r^-2 power is really awesome, but the dense, star-forming interstellar medium is a little more complex than that. You have to take into account turbulence (collisions within the gasses), stellar feedback (other high-mass stars exploding in the neighborhood), etc. So I am skeptical as to whether or not that's where the Salpeter power law index comes from. It's an interesting connection nonetheless! Finally, at 10:07, I take exception to the statement "...galaxies are formed by stars clustering together into bigger pieces." Galaxy formation is a direct effect of dark matter overdensities, which gravitationally attract baryonic (non-dark) matter to their center, not necessarily groups of stars in space that all coalesce. The stars have to form from the gas reservoir, which needs to be sufficiently dense. In the absence of large dark matter potential wells the diffuse intergalactic gas simply doesn't get dense enough (or if, by some wild chance it would, not enough of it would in order to form galaxies of the mass we see today!). Again, really enjoyed the video! I hope you find the comment helpful 😀 EDIT: formatting (thanks @Speed)

[@Speed001]

*Formatting Astrophysicist here, I'm getting my Ph.D. studying galaxy formation/evolution. I wanna start out and say, I really enjoyed the video! It's really interesting to think about how mass is distributed in the Universe and if the same laws of nature that apply to galaxy clusters apply to LEGOs :). First is in regards to the initial mass function (IMF, as we typically call the mass function for stars) you describe here. Indeed the Salpeter (1955) IMF is a power law with an index of -2.35. However, more recently increasingly complex IMFs are used to describe the distribution of stellar masses of stars (see, e.g., Kroupa 2001 or Chabrier 2003) which are more than just a power law. These distributions are more like log-normal distributions, they have a plateau and turn over at lower masses. Even further than "Is it a power law?" it's actually a super open question in Astrophysics right now whether the IMF has evolved throughout the lifetime of the Universe. Second (sort of related), I think your intuition about gravity and the r^-2 power is really awesome, but the dense, star-forming interstellar medium is a little more complex than that. You have to take into account turbulence (collisions within the gasses), stellar feedback (other high-mass stars exploding in the neighborhood), etc. So I am skeptical as to whether or not that's where the Salpeter power law index comes from. It's an interesting connection nonetheless! Finally, at 10:07, I take exception to the statement "...galaxies are formed by stars clustering together into bigger pieces." Galaxy formation is a direct effect of dark matter overdensities, which gravitationally attract baryonic (non-dark) matter to their center, not necessarily groups of stars in space that all coalesce. The stars have to form from the gas reservoir, which needs to be sufficiently dense. In the absence of large dark matter potential wells the diffuse intergalactic gas simply doesn't get dense enough (or if, by some wild chance it would, not enough of it would in order to form galaxies of the mass we see today!). Again, really enjoyed the video! I hope you find the comment helpful 😀

[@trashmanjacobs7180]

I knew someone had higher knowledge (no hate towards the bird, he’s great and being outside of physics n astrology they’re awesome to keep my interest peaked) but the second Mr bird asked for Lego workers I had a feeling if not them YOU’d show n ya did :) thanks for the insight but, and excuse my ignorance forgive my incorrectness, has dark matter been found? I mean i know have strong proof it’s there, with galaxies being heavier than expected n what not but we have yet to capture/replicate/find proof aside from implication of its existence? Again I’m just an onlooker, but dark matter really fascinates me as a concept and I’d like to know more about it if possible Really interesting to read your take as a soon-to-be Ph.D !

[@trashmanjacobs7180]

OOOO OOO ALSO again not too well versed in any of these fields a t a l l but wouldn’t we need to include dark matter in the IMF to make the calculations more accurate??

[@_AlexGarcia_]

@@trashmanjacobs7180 Great questions! First, yes we have fairly direct evidence for dark matter (on astrophysical scales). A quick example of this is orbits within galaxies: the (visible) matter within galaxies orbits faster than can be held together by just the (visible) mass within it, therefore there must be some missing (invisible/dark) matter that we cannot see. Whether or not we just missed normal matter in observations, it is some exotic particle, or we need to re-write physics (see "Milgromian physics" if interested, there's a really great video by "PBS Spacetime" explaining it) is still a manner of debate. With that being said, I would say there is a majority who believe it to be exotic particles that don't interact with light. Second, by construction the IMF sets out to measure the distribution of masses of stars. So no we don't explicitly need to account for dark matter within it since stars are made of normal matter. Galaxy-wide scaling relations, however, can (and do) include dark matter.

[@brazni]

This is kind of reminiscent of Zipf's Law. Something to keep in mind is that a relatively small variation from -2, to, say -2.5, is a bit bigger than we might think as it is on a log scale.

[@Henrix1998]

Not to even talk about the trend line error. In many cases it doesn't describe the data very well at all

[@hughobyrne2588]

It also reminded me of a study of the distribution of scene lengths in movies, or maybe shot lengths, to be more precise. Lots of little shots, like glancing over to a character's face to see their reaction, quite a few shots longer than that, and some long shots, maybe a slow pan over beautiful scenery. No, I'm afraid I don't remember the exponent; I think it wasn't highlighted in the article so much as the exponential decay shape.

[@AdrianLee]

I came here to mention the Zipfyness, but I knew in my heart that someone already did 😄

[@original9yearold606]

Came here to say this

[@loganfisher3138]

The -2 coming from gravity makes good sense, but if a similar pattern exists in a wide range of different settings wherein things are built from combinations of other things (e.g. LEGO sets, IKEA furniture, laserjet printers, motor vehicles, etc.), that would suggest that it's a statistical property instead. I'd be interested in seeing a data where rather than "mass" being the x-axis, it's "mass of component divided by mass of the final product" wherein components of a wide range of different things are included, rather than just being a single category of objects, like LEGO. I think that distribution might provide further insight into this.

[@ludooliver8728]

It could definitely be that Lego seeks to mimic the constraints of gravity with its connections and structure

[@whatisahandle221]

🙃🥸🤩🤓

[@coppertones7093]

i think what’s more likely is that the -2 comes from the dimensionality of our universe. the -2 in the gravitational equation comes from the same place: the inverse square law. which means it might be worth exploring 2d or 4d video games

[@BardBreakfast]

I love that this concept of smaller parts summing to equal bigger parts is kind of intuitive while being simultaneously mysterious. The universe is a strange and magical place.

[@dadonCCF]

Great video! I’m an acquaintance of the author of the paper. I have a school-aged son and a BrickLink store, so he sent me the paper to read, and then later sent me this video. You did a great job. He’s really impressed, and my son has become a big fan of yours (I already was). If you need any help with Lego, give me a hollar. Or if you’d like to get in touch with Stefan, I know he’d be happy to speak with you. Keep up the great work!

[@physicsforthebirds]

That makes me very happy to hear - both that the author likes it and that you and your son enjoy the videos! I thought this was a fun topic so I made it with all ages in mind.

[@bashirsfar3825]

it is actually criminal with how small your channel is. Your content is fantastic and so well executed. I can't wait to watch you grow in the future.

[@ozen.m8161]

I love your videos, the way you mix different subjects that at first might seem completely unrelated is fascinating to say the least Warmest regards and best of wishes🌹🌹🌹

[@physicsforthebirds]

Thanks! That means a lot

[@S3N-v4j]

@@physicsforthebirds Plethora ❤

[@yanathecontrarian4863]

I like your theory about why -2 for astronomical objects. Edit: Though actually, I think I just thought of a handwavy variation that doesn't depend on the gravitational constant. Let's say we start with a bunch of really small things (rocks, particles, etc.). Some might merge together into particles that are twice as big, and some might not. then, out of those, some might merge again to form particles of the next order of magnitude, etc. If, at any level, the probability of merging vs. not merging is about even (for any reason at all, which may be different for different types of "things"), then I think the exponent will be roughly around -2. For LEGO bricks, I have a different (half-baked) model that might be worth exploring. We can view a LEGO model as trying to approximate a specific 3D shape using a minimal(ish) number of bricks. With some additional constraints, e.g. there's a limit to how large (or at least how massive) the bricks get, and also limits on individual dimensions (e.g. normal bricks are only so thick). So, they fill in the rough shape with big bricks, then they start using progressively smaller bricks for the details, then even smaller for the tiny details, etc. At some point it bottoms out because they either give up on the level of fidelity, or make bricks that are the exact right shape they need (e.g. human head, flower, window, ...). I feel like these constraints will at the very least naturally produce a power distribution. It would also be interesting (and relevant) to find out whether brick volume is proportional to mass (or maybe larger bricks are less dense, for example)

[@Duarte_GB]

3:04 need to say, this is actually called the initial mass function (IMF) . Slatpeter is just one of them, another really used one is Kroupa for example (also named after the scientist like the Saltpeter). Also for galaxies a nrw one tends to show up called the IGIMF which is integrated galactic initial mass function and comes from the behaviour of the initial mass functions of all the star clusters and stars inside the galaxy.

[@djsheep202]

This is my new favourite Channel!

[@SupremeLeaderKimJong-un]

You want me to count every object in my house?! Uh, yeah, I'll get right on that. Respect to NSU to use a Ninjago set for the experiment. Because it shows they jumped up, kicked back, whipped around, and spun, and then they jumped back and did it again. If everyone did the Weekend Whip, the world would clearly be a better place. Nova Southeastern was originally a National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) institution back in the 1982-83 athletic season, which they would compete in their first conference affiliation home in the Florida Sun Conference from 1990 to 2002. The Sharks were originally called the Knights, which was from 1982 until 2004. In 2005, they unveiled the new Sharks logo and athletic mascot. The nickname was selected by the students.

[@charlielinden351]

I'm certain your channel will grow exponentially as you make these videos, they are very thorough and high level! Keep up the good work, I'll keep watching!

[@fake-one]

I have two (very high-level and possibly very wrong)thoughts on this: 1. It could very likely be related to packing small and large pieces in bags(or even some sort of packing algorithm), as the design might be optimised for that. Or some obscure packing problem, for that matter. 2. Smaller pieces are spread out on the surface area of larger parts. So a graph like this is expected. Some more thought on the circley things might give more insights on the exact power of 2 point something. Random extensions to these: For 1. The density of smaller objects are larger because they have more bulky and dense edges compared to light flat surfaces. (I checked this for squares and circles) lego lengths have a higher variance wrt bag sizes, so it won't scale as much. Using this, I tried to see what would happen if we naively take n(legos) \propto vol(bag)/vol(lego), but was off by 0.5 or something. Without looking at the data as it's already 4 am lmao For 2. For VLSI, a design following a somewhat-similar principle, I'd say mass and surface area both scale according to the square of the side, as height does not vary too much. So it should not be very far from 1/mass. Legos often have tall pieces. idk what I'm talking about, though. Also, great video: Can't stop thinking about this :p

[@scialomy]

#2 makes a lot of sense.

[@ferociousfeind8538]

9:32 I think it's most of everything? For legos, there is most likely a balance between difficulty of producing a factory to make that piece of that size, and demand for that piece, and the raw plastic needed to produce X count of that piece, which leads to pieces of 1 gram being roughly 4x as common as pieces of 2 grams, and 1 gram little studs being 64x as common as 8 gram bricks, or 10,000x as common as 100g monster bricks (who wants a single piece that large??)

[@AT-zr9tv]

This was such an enjoyably nerdy and poetic moment of science. You sound like such a fun friend to have. I hope you are able to make a living creating these videos.

[@angelmarques3124]

This was a very interesting video! Also, as software engineer student, doing stuff like what you did in this video, just because you can, is what got me into this field.

[@dolphinman042]

Always a good day when one of your videos comes out!

[@joshuaneiswinter253]

I play with game design as a hobby... one of the things I have learned is about Level of Detail (LoD). While LoD is used to performance... it kind of is with our brains as well. Say you are making a car out of legos. My first thought is about the blockiest shape of a car.. basically a box. Then start rounding off the edges and adding a of form. Basically each step, with finer and finer detail, cuts the size of the shapes we're working with in half. Same with LoD (though, that is a very simplified explanation of LoD)... so I think that's why it comes up in legos. Why it comes up in nature .. I can't even begin to hypothesis.

[@tylerr5285]

There is a likelihood that this has to do with a carefully selected balance of play-versatility for customers and manufacturing. In the 1990s Lego was going wild with lots of themed sets, but this resulted in manufacturing many kinds of larger, unique and niche-use pieces, like the rope bridge piece, boat hull elements, and the big ugly rock piece. Going into the 2000s, Lego was in financial trouble because these products didn't have the shelf life they wanted and they were expensive to manufacture. They switched gears and started making more sets that involved smaller more versatile pieces and more of them that were easier to manufacture, like cheese wedge slopes and common 1x2 plates. At the same time they started doing themes with other intellectual properties, like Star Wars, Harry Potter, and the NBA. These turned out to be the right decision. The major exception to this generalization is Bionicle.

[@equivocator7727]

My gut tells me you're correct that stellar mass following a square power is related to gravity, but there's no real reason to think the two distributions are related. Lego being hollow with close to uniform surface thickness could easily account for how reliably the mass distribution follows a square. I'd like to see what mass distribution holds for solid objects (like maybe rocks?). If it looks like a cube, then the question becomes: "What rules govern the size distributions of these objects?"

[@mr_rede_de_stone916]

That's soooo cool -- plus a question I'd never stumbled upon before. Such a good video as always!

[@mssm9495]

I'm a Lego fan and custom design creator. Small pieces are used to create detail, as well as specific functionality. Since Lego designs typically reflect our world in some manner, it makes sense that lots of small pieces are required to match the fractal and chaotic nature of our world. An interesting research topic would be to do something similar to actual fractals. Or turbulent fluid flow.

[@jigilub]

Playing leads to observation then leads to learning. I have never encountered boring triviality - only data my brain can't fathom. Thank you for your videos, it is so refreshing to have these higher level thoughts written so concisely! As Above So Below, from High to Low, Unified under the law that governs it all, whatever that may be.

[@Ganerrr]

this rule feels like something to due with fractal dimensions in 3d euclidean space. eg for an object to be considered an "object" it needs to be someone self-related [no treedogs here] and that generally includes a notion of "connectedness", and things are generally also made of several smaller things and that connectedness is related to how often the smaller things are by themselves or form a bigger thing [⅕ of the time it seems]

[@HeavyMetalMouse]

My first guess for the distribution was a Zipf's Law curve, since we're talking about how common different groups of things are, but as you explained the actual answer, I realized that a Zipf curve doesn't actually give relationships in any ordered way, only between the 'most common' to the 'next most common' so it wouldn't really be applicable here. That said, a Zipf curve *is* pretty close to a power curve with a = -1, with the implication that that there would be half as many things which are twice as massive. If there are 4 times as many things that are half as massive, that means that the *total amount of mass* in each 'group' follows a power law of a = -1. There is twice much total mass in the universe made up of (~1kg) things as there total mass made up of (~2kg) things. I think part of this might be due to the way that big things are usually made of small things, but there are also small things that aren't also part of other big things, but that doesn't really have meaning when talking about discrete LEGO bricks, which are all separate, atomic objects for purposes of comparison - no LEGO brick is made up of smaller bricks (at least, not the way a galaxy is made up of stars). This raises further questions!

[@HypeTrains]

I think looking at megablox or other brands of definitely-not-LEGO would provide good evidence for if the -2 being intentional there. As for why it keeps popping up in the universe, It could come down to spacetime's shape being parabolic around particles, a.k.a. the force due to gravity and r^2. I think it is linked to entropy in some way too, or they are symptoms of the same mathematical fact of the universe

[@CoolRubiksCube]

0:25 If we define an object to be any collection of particles with mass, we can see that there will be (n choose k) objects with a mass of k in a collection of n fundamental particles. Since we're finding the total mass of the set, multiply this by k to get (k * n!)/(k! * (n-k)!). Plotting this for different values of n, we can see that the maximum value of this function for integers = (n + 1)/2, or for even numbers, n/2 and n/2 + 1 are equally large. Take the number of particles with one atomic mass unit in the universe to be around 10^80, and we get around 5 * 10^79 atomic mass units; aka, 7.5 * 10^52 kg is the mass which we want to choose in order to select the objects with the greatest combined mass if you categorise all objects by atomic mass units. Of course, defining an object to be any collection of fundamental particles is silly, but there's no objective definition.

[@pkmnhx43_27]

This gives me the same vibe as stuff like benford's law, it feels like there must be an underlying reason for this to happen even if its just the nature of things

[@mubasshir]

This is such a good channel. It is rare to see channels that not only explain complex phenomena but also expand upon it. Such a well-researched and laboriously crafted video. You just earned a subscriber

[@Firefin]

I instantly recognized the mascot at 4:43 because I literally live 5 minutes away from the NSU campus and have gone there dozens of times. that's amazing

[@alexbanks9510]

2 minutes in - already subscribed and added the rest of your videos to my queue. this is great

[@fabriziobrown4454]

Power law distributions are everywhere! Not every phenomena is power law distributed, but alot are. For instance, take the earthquakes: every day there are a ton of extremely small quakes, but very few are large enough to be noticeable (and the exponent is still around 2, which comes out everywhere you look with just slight variation). Not all events are power law distributed: when it rains, rain drop sizes are distributed according to (when the number of drops goes to infinity) a Gaussian. I think, but I can be wrong, that there's something to do with aggregation processes, when you create objects by combining others the exponent comes out. Maybe is due to the dimensionality of our world, as I think, but this is just speculation, that in a world with more than 3 dimensions, the exponent could be different. On the exponent itself, if I remember correctly, most sets have a slightly larger value than 2, like 2.3 or something (still its been a while since I've studied the subject in depth), if you want to know more I advise you to study power laws in the subject of complex physics

[@flashbach8908]

I learned about your channel from a talk from the professor who wrote this paper! This is so cool!

[@danielglazer3713]

This was an incredible video, thank you for making it. Your channel is quickly becoming one of my favorites. Just a point on what you said in the end, the models we have for galaxy formation actually are somewhat similar to star formation, in that they are both formed from clouds or roughly uniform clumps of matter that get too dense at one point and collapse into different sized pockets. For stars this happens in clouds of gas, but for galaxies it happens over the scale of the whole universe with dark matter halos. Halos look something like stars forming out of a nebula, and the regular matter collects in the center, forming galaxies and galaxy clusters.

[@lilskippydude]

i was a subscriber from 300 subs! nice job growing your channel! :D

[@hjklhjklhjklhjklhjklhjkl]

Love your slow calm relaxed speech

[@_Mojius_]

PLEASE upload your background music, it's so beautiful!!

[@priziuss]

This is probably one of the best video I have ever seen, I really appreciate that we start from a fact about universe, think of a way to experiment at our own scale, an draw conclusions from it. This is research done great. Also, it opens so much potential for experimentation. As you said, we should try this experiment with all kind of things, this is very exciting!

[@alexandrarolfness1215]

I think this is especially interesting because the notion of a discrete object with mass is at least somewhat a semantic creation. It’s straightforward with legos of course, but if I am weighing objects in my house, I could count my watch as an object, or i count count each of the large components that easily come apart like the band and the face and the clasp, or I could try and separate every little screw and wire that could be pulled apart with watchmaker tools. Even then there is no objective partition, and you might have a different answer than I do. You could even define discrete objects at the atomic or subatomic level, in which case it seems less likely that this interesting mass distribution would hold.

[@LucasMorettoD]

I really want to point out that the arithmetic mean of all the twelve lego slopes you've show in the video is equal to (-2.13-1.95-2.16-1.98-2.04-2.05-1.40-1.76-2.091.98-2.39-2.2)/12 = -2.01083333... Pretty close, right? love the way you investigated the idea in the video, wish you all the best from Brazil 💚💛💙💛💚

[@physicsforthebirds]

Hey, it works out pretty well! I regret not calculating the error and doing this myself, so I'm glad people like you are doing it for me

[@LucasMorettoD]

@@physicsforthebirds it's a pleasure! I was too curious to hold myself back and don't go calculate

[@MagicGonads]

the arithmetic mean of the slopes translates to a geometric mean of the original distributions, would we rather take an arithmetic mean of the distributions? then I don't know what the mean of the slopes should be (the critical problem is how we should think about the 'error')

[@momoskates3491]

Man I'm a teacher and I'm flabbergasted about each one of your videos, I love them!!! So many creative ways of approaching classical topics

[@amazingdragon2767]

love the video! I love fun little scientific explorations into things that I would never have encountered otherwise, especially in the format you present in!

[@HI-kv1be]

1:41 I really love the part when the music starts playing. It makes the intro like a proper hook for us, which is a small detail but has such a massive impact. Good job on the interesting and easy-to-understand video essay

[@MoSchneider]

Economics student here. I tried it on different metrics like gdp, gdp per person, city size, gdp per city and it always turned out between 2 and 2.5

[@dali4323]

I really love your videos man. Thanks for making them. I love how you find hands-on experiments to advanced physical (or mathematical ) ideas . AND you always find such fun ideas to talk about. You're an inspiration for me.

[@Steaphany]

Why not perform cosmological simulations basing object mass distributions with different power constants ? What does the Universe look like with a power of -.3 or -5 or +2. The outcome may help explain why -2 is needed.

[@nerofarreach2417]

You're videos are a rollercoaster. The initial title screams that you're on crack like Russian badger or Jeff. But then you're so incredibly calm as you casually explain everything on a level for a degree-less pleb like me can comprehend and understand. Bro you're awesome.

[@officersoulknight6321]

Things I learned from this video; -Legos might be a viable way to describe the distribution of mass in the universe with more testing -THE LEGO AT-AT COSTS 900 FUCKING DOLLARS

[@BirdbrainEngineer]

Ooh, this gives me ideas on things to count and see whether the exponent is the same. I feel like it has nothing to do with gravity, but rather just... how things are composed of other, smaller things.

[@grahamwilson8843]

Great video! I love the idea that random occurrences strictly follow some grand rule like this. Just another example of mathematics so shockingly representing reality.

[@johnsjarboe]

Hmm... In the context of mass distributions in the universe, you note counting planets vs stars vs clusters vs galaxies etc. So higher mass buckets include items from smaller buckets. However, with lego pieces this is not the case - why doesn't this cause a difference in the distributions?

[@cristinaalexe7454]

This is beautiful, thank you for the video

[@deadcat8167]

I think the reason for the distribution is much as you said where we start with larger pieces and use smaller pieces to detail. You can picture most Lego construction like a fractal where the face of the shape has exponentially more pieces than the interior and you could theoretically scale these models infinitely and see the edge's detail grow infinitely.

[@jamessullysolipsist4860]

I'm a huge fan of that channel, intriguing as entertaining, your videos are awesome man, keep it up!

[@stevekoshlyak208]

Look into polymerization and how distributions of different lengths of mers form. It’s pretty much your rock explanation. A decade ago I wrote a program to find out the average lengths of polymer chains formed in a solution of mers for my materials science class. From what I remember, the rate of reaction between molecules of various chain lengths, like 1-mer and 1-mer, 2-mer and 1-mer, 3-mer and 2-mer and so forth were based on concentrations of each, and obviously the bigger a chain is, the rarer it is, and the less likely it is to react with other longer polymer chains. Anyway, there’s a lot of papers written about average length of polymer chains and mass distribution in polymer solutions - like, what range of lengths of polymer chains contains most of the mass of a cured polymer solution. Look into it, it’s interesting, and your video reminded me of it.

[@lukehastings2214]

10:36 there is actually another thing that all of these things have in common (other than having mass) but it's subtle. They are all things that if you were to choose a section of that thing and the section does not include the whole thing but only contains the thing then it will be less than the mass of whole thing. An example to make this make more sense would be that a pencil weighs more than the eraser on the pencil and the pencil eraser is part of the pencil that is not the whole pencil. I'm sorry that this is worded in such a confusing way

[@zhabiboss]

My reason for this is that if you have too many big parts the set won’t have as much detail but if you have too many small ones you won’t be able to make a big set or it will be frustrating to build.

[@SebWilkes]

I enjoyed a more speculative video for a change, good work!

[@hi117117]

I think this mass distribution will apply to pretty much anything that you throw at it unless there's some special reason for it to not work. a negative two mass distribution is quite a natural idea, and you kind of touched on it in your outro. you have one big central mass, and then detail, and then more detail, and then more detail. this naturally forms a negative two mass distribution.

[@James2210]

These weird emergent properties that just seem to apply everywhere fascinate me. If you could do more on this, I would love it.

[@emilsitell5484]

Fantastic video as usual!

[@icarob-eng]

In cosmology we study Large Scale Structure (LSS) formation, in parts through defining the "matter power spectrum" P(k) that correlates a wavenumber k (inverse of the scale size of the structure) to the prevalence of density fluctuations of matter in the universe. The scale of the structure and it's density fluctuations of course relate directly to the total Mass of the fluctuation. One of the first guesses of the shape of the Power Spectrum is P(k) ~ k^n which is the Harrison-Zel'dovich spectrum. This is closely followed for linear perturbations, i.e., not-so-dense structures where the gravitational collapse isn't a big deal, for example, LSSs in the early universe. If I understand it correctly, the Planck's CMB measurements of the n is defined as 1-n_s where n_s~0.966 is the spectral index. The measurements of the non-linear power spectrum helped us to determine the temperature of the now know as "Could Dark Matter" (the CDM of the standsrd model), since it affects how structures smaller than the Hubble scale grows. Well, that's what I understand as a undergrad, at least.

[@thewisefromwest6941]

Beautiful beautiful beautiful video. Can't believe no body would explain stellar mass distribution with legos. This what science is all about

[@GPEtana]

Glad I found this channel, quality stuff! Keep it up :)

[@LarryOfCamalot]

I would have to assume it's related to Benford's Law. Or at least, the data underlying Benford's Law has similar properties of distribution.

[@okie9025]

Fun fact: the radius of moon impact craters, the chance of opening chess moves, and the rate at which we forget *all follow this exact same rule*. It's called Zipf's Law or the Pareto Principle. When using the power law formula, things in nature tend to have an exponent between 2 and 3. This is not a conscious decision made by someone, it's just the way natural data is distributed. Another way to think about this case with LEGO is using the 80/20 principle - 20% of the pieces contain 80% of the mass. Vsauce has a great video on this mind-blowing phenomenon.

[@josephschaefer9163]

Wow. I was doing bend tests with different lengths of flat bar, and none of the math I found online made sense, but my exponent was 2.37

[@yrok244]

This video was published on my birthday! What a cool present

[@Andrew-Gosling]

All your videos are so good, thank you very much ☺️

[@wmkeeble]

You have excellent timing! I was putting together a LEGO shopping list at work today. I work at a university, and I'm putting together a prototyping kit (trying to encourage the engineering undergrads to actually experiment with their designs, instead of mono-focusing on the first idea they have). I'm now thinking I need to order about 5x more of the fiddly little bits. 😅

[@juliavixen176]

I have never played the game Katamari Damacy, nor thought about it for years, but for some reason this video reminded me of it.

[@alessandrodanovaro181]

Would be interesting to go all the way down to atoms and their frequency in the universe. Love your videos, they're always great!

[@amonferrell4452]

In a way, you could consider this phenomenon the universal distribution of particles through the form of charge force, magnetic force, and gravitational force. Perhaps because all matter consists of the same elements which are naturally occurring configurations of particles, it carries the same patterns throughout its spectrum of mass. Nonetheless, this finding is a testament to how fascinating and complex the universe truly is. Wonderful video :)

[@Gi0rdan0]

Really cool paper and explanation

[@YeahBoy1019]

Just recently found your channel and I’m loving the content. Gives me major Minutephysics vibes and I’d love to see you reach the same success. Im a huge consumer of physics based YT content and I’m glad I found a new channel to binge. Now I don’t mean to be knit-picky and I mean this in the most constructive/kind way possible, but I’ve noticed a lot of “mouth noise” in your audio, which isn’t super distracting to me since I listen with a speaker, but I can imagine it can get distracting to those listening with head phones. Once again I’m only mentioning this as input that I believe will help your channel. I don’t know what can be done recording wise to reduce the effect, but I would suggest practicing voice projection and speaking from the diaphragm, this should help beef up/enhance your voice and reduce/suppress the mouth noise. Once again I’m sorry to be pointing this out since we can’t help the way our mouths are shaped lol. I just know how it can turn listeners off and I’d like to see you grow as a channel. Good luck and thank you for the content

[@elle3562]

"And the subject of their experiment is Lego Ninjago[...] I mean, what does that say about the state of scientific research?" Simple, it means we must be doing something right 😤

[@micahvisser3772]

my thought is universality. Parts that are smaller can be used in more situations - the giant ship haul would be very difficult to use outside of a boat context, whereas a 1x2 grate can be used in almost any context. This likely extends to the universe, where a star or a black hole can't really be used outside of that one role or purpose in the universe, whereas planets and asteroids have so much more diversity at their smaller sizes.

[@sturgecon]

i finish my undergrad degree this semester, and i probably have time to publish only one more paper. so far, i've been able to reference star wars and star trek in some of my papers, but today i learned that i need to somehow find a way to connect my research to lego before i graduate so that i can reference lego in my last paper

[@interrospire]

Once I finish high school watching these videos is how I'll "apply what I learned"

[@sadbot6611]

This is a hecking brilliant video thank you

[@PacificBird]

I feel like the question of if the way gravity is proportional to mass^-2 is what causes the trend should be something we could try and investigate through simulation

[@nowhed]

Your voice is bumpy but smooth, like a stone path. Soothing.

[@maxgarval4997]

Great video, your channel is very fun to share with my college engineering buddies

[@circumflexcircumflex]

I love your outro music! Did you make it yourself or is it a song of which a full version exists?

[@newtonswig]

Don’t think I’ve seen a video in a very long time that has nerd-sniped me so completely! Why the hell does this work for Lego!!? And is the gravity explanation for astronomical bodies something with maths to back it up??! I have to know and I demand a follow-up! Also subscribed, obviously!

[@auguststar]

Thanks for another great video!

[@tonyoh7629]

Your videos are amazing!

[@felfar197]

thank you for the awesome video!

[@slightgraph89]

I think the best part about science is EVERYTHING is science if you look at it long enough. The reason science fairs and kids science experiments are so fun and interesting is realizing the degree to which science dictates and is dictated by everyday life, and things like this paper and your videos seem very silly but ITS THE SAME AS WHAT EVERY OTHER SCIENTIST DOES, but you aren't afraid to look at EVERYTHING, even if you think it would make you look silly to experiment or observe it

[@TheInevitableHulk]

I wonder if going by volume contributing to the set's volume would get you even closer results since LEGOs are designed for their structure, not their mass.

[@dyan1471]

My first thought after never thinking about this problem until now is that this might be a trait of our human psychology not the universe. Our decisions of how we break things up and decide on categories could naturally fall into this pattern. That a descriptive venture, categorizing discrete objects, and a proscriptive venture, creating discrete objects, lends itself to the same answer leads me to think the measuring device is the culprit.

[@nikitaafanas]

If I'm not mistaken I think organisms follow this similar distribution, like bacteria sized organisms to single celled organisms to small creatures and so on until the biggest animals.

[@jiffylou98]

Fantastic video as always

[@VaradMahashabde]

Because of how you mentioned that for Lego you have bulky central thing and smaller details attached to it, maybe the distribution from the fact that everything gains mass through it's surface, which 4πr²? I know mass is r³, but there might be a connection

[@EPMTUNES]

Awesome video!

[@thosewhowish2b693]

I think it has to do with probability of interaction. If we interact objects 2 by 2, the probability of interaction is the newton binomial (n / 2) = n*(n-1)/2, i.e. "n choose 2". For n>>1, p ~= n²/2. If your system has a limited resource to share among all items, then if the number of items in a class (in this case size) goes up, the resources allocated by item has to go down (in this case mass). In the case of LEGO, I think they artificially choose each number to make it fun, since there's less and less use for bigger pieces; they end up dialing an optimum by experience. For gravity, the more objects you have, the more they will collide, and the bodies can 1) bounce, 2) break each other apart, or 3) lump together. The probability for each type of interaction depends on the size of the bodies: a big body is more likely clump smaller ones, small bodies are more likely to break each other apart. So, as bodies grow bigger, they will collide less and absorb smaller ones, reducing their number. Small bodies on the other hand tend to collide and crumble even more. So, why isn't there a void in the middle, for average sized bodies? Well, there kinda is... locally at least. Just look at the solar system: the sun is more massive than all planets combined. Around Saturn, the rings are pretty much powder orbiting a big mass.

[@officersoulknight6321]

I personally think 1/m^2 is where -2 comes from. For those that don’t know, an exponent in the denominator is expressed as a negative exponent, so 1/m^2 is the same thing as m^-2. Considering that the process where this exponent came up is intrinsically important to explaining why there are so many small things, it makes sense that -2 would be from there.