The last bit blew my mind! I did the math to verify the claim, and it turns out the body of a neuron is a bit small to sit right in the middle between the planck length and the diameter of the obervable universe. What does however fall right into that sweetspot is the human egg cell. The diameter of an egg cell devided by the planck length being about 7.424E+30, and the diameter of the observable universe devided by that of the egg cell being 7.333E+30, if calculated with the values from wikipedia: for the egg cell of 0.12E-3, the planck length of 1.161255E-35 m and the observable universe 8.8E+26 m. The ratios balance out with an egg cell of 0,1192604041E-3 m. Thank you for intriguing me 😊
Gossip Goat *flashes back to 1968.* *Is counting rounds for an AK-47* 1.... 2... skip a few... 99, 100. *Loads the AK and kicks a door down, shooting everywhere.*
I come back to old videos of michael's because they're oddly comforting. the information he presents usually isn't comforting to think about, but something about his cadence, confidence, and dogmatic nature is so grounding. it's like he's telling you that yes, the world is big and terrifying, and we're so small and inconsequential compared, but he's right there with you. I don't know. it's nice.
@@Marieadams.little.love.handles some people are just disgustingly brain dead and they can't leave nice things because their eyes are so fucking blind that they never saw something nice in the first place
Am I the only one realizing how mind blowing this is? "The number of Plank lengths you could stretch across a brain cell is equivalent to the number of brain cells it would take to stretch across the observable universe".
@@h1suu fine. A plank length is the smallest distance ever. A brain cell is a cell from ur brain. The observable universe is the part of the universe that we can ''see'', any further is just nothing. The number of plank lengths it would take to stretch across a braincell (eg: a gap is 1km long. It would take 1000 of 1 metre bridge sections to stretch across. If you dont know metric idc) would be roughly the same as the number of brain cells it would take to stretch across the observable universe. (Its like the number of 1metre rope needed to strech across 10metre gap is the same as the number of 10metre rope needed in order to strech across a 100metre gap) I swear if u cant understand then good luck.
@@h1suu well if 10 brain cells kept beside each other is equal to the total length of the observable universe, 10 objects of the length equal to plank length kept beside each other would be equal to the total length of a brain cell. The only difference is that the number is way bigger than 10
Vsauce: "What is between 1 and 9?" Me: "Easy, 4 1/2" Vsauce: "Most people would guess 5..." Me: "oh.. well im still right to others???" Vsauce: "others may reply with 3.." FML
I made it to almost 110 on my first try, whilst sitting at my computer, then 119 standing and doing a lean forward as taught in singing lessons. I have previously done vocal warm-ups, so might be a little better at it than average, but it is still an incredibly doable achievement. These single-breath counters are sitting down in some instances, proving that they aren't singers. A professional singer, in the correct stance, leaning forward as their lungs emptied until their foreheads are nearly touching the ground, could bust 400, opera singers in particular. Made up achievement. Edit: Did not notice I had already commented below this 7 years ago.
It's crazy to think that there has never been a person who has lived to be four billion seconds old. Jeanne Calment (the oldest person to ever live) only lived to 3.85 billion seconds old. Even though we can live to be billions of seconds old, when you think of life in seconds you realize how short it really is.
I know I’m going to get attacked for saying this, but now I have to man up, these repetitive comments are really getting irritating and they’re just not funny anymore. The same goes with these types of comments Nobody: Not a single soul: or Plot twist: he’s a paid actor or Welcome to another episode of why is this in my recommendations or Kid: mom can we get “this thing” Mom: no we already have one at home at home: “this thing* and the list goes on and on... but seriously please make an end to these kind of comments because they already lost their taste of being humorous.
a mythical being • 8 years ago and everyone has there own opinion. I personally have no problem with it but I do know that they are everywhere so I get why you would not like them
"May explain why life seems to speed up as we get older" This is true, it felt like forever being a kid, and now everything seems to be playing at fast forward around me. Hard to believe it's been 6 years already since this video was made. Time does seem to fly when you get older.
carte blanche i'm fairly certain this "sense of exceptionalism" is nothing more than cognitive bias. you can also create any number of different logarithmic scales and place certain correctly-sized objects along that number-line. [planck length] ~ [neuron] ~ [observable universe] ← this is using a log scale of 2. what if we used a log scale of 3? or 4? or 567? would that make other objects "special"? if we do away with cognitive bias, we see that attributing mystical qualities to such positions is nothing more than numerology or a misfiring of the ability to sense log scales.
Gregory Samuel Teo Actually, the log scale is invariant under different bases, since it measures relative size. Therefore we would be "in the middle" regardless of what base you used in the log scale. This is due to the fact that log(b, x) =log(b,e)log(e,x). Since log(b,e) is constant, you can switch from one base in another in the log scale by simply multiplying by the correct constant, which doesn't distort the relative distances between anything. You can see this from the fact that [planck length] / [neuron] = [neuron] /[observable universe]. This fact is independent of your system of measurement.
Keyboard Doge coincidence Gregory Samuel Teo cognitive bias.. Sultan Ijaz intelligent design.... it's one of the most interesting debates we have... I guess what it boils down to is I'm obsessed with the infinite and things of that nature. I struggle to comprehend an atom, or a galaxy for that matter.
Friend: what are you watching? Me: Vsauce Friend: what’s the name of the video? Me: oh it’s 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35...
Lorenz Jahn actually the observable universe is the only part of the universe we can see, the rest of it, is accelerating away from us, faster than the speed of light; so we can never see that part of the universe, as the light from there will never reach it, because space over there is stretching faster than light can travel.
@@achuthanarun467 I wanted to allude to a physical theory, according to which subatomic space isn’t the basis of everything, but the soul or spirit is. If this theory is correct, the _to us visible universe_ and the _entire universe_ would be the same.
"Imagine the smallest thing, a planck lenght. Now imagine the biggest thing, the observable universe" "What would be in the middle?" Me: my last braincell
Complete masterpiece. Every single part stimulated me to new thoughts of my own. I’ll have to revisit this video to wrap my head around it fully. It can lead one to so many new currents of thought with its implications.
+David Mansilla Yea, but the reason for that is because everyone who thought it was 4.5 was starting from 0, not 1. I thought 4.5 at first, then remembered 3, then remembered 5.
I feel like it makes sense to think in a linear way when counting smaller numbers, like: How many chicken nuggets did I just eat? But as soon as it comes to numbers too big or too smal to imagine or even understand, I switch to a logarithmic way of counting.
IULITM I knew that something doesn't match to the U.S, especially monuments that look more than 300 years old and graffiti on the walls, which hasn't been removed :)
Christian Silva Fuck no from now on what he said is an official fact. Of course it's his opinion, why do you even say that? You don't need to write "IMO" to express your opinion.
@@Delsin42 I only saw one video and it wasn't disturbing (kinda wierd though) but I'm not going back there, I still believe in the chance of finding something I didn't want to
@@lucassalviano6943 I'm sorry but I'm not good at imagining things lol but I would really appreticate if you tell me the name of the video cause I need a good spook
Hey, Vsauce. Michael here. Let's take a moment to recognize the heroes who count. Canadian Mike Smith holds the world record for the largest number counted to in one breath - 125. But the world record for the largest number ever counted to belongs to Jeremy Harper from Birmingham, Alabama. In order to set the record, Harper never left his apartment. He got regular sleep, but from the moment he woke up in the morning until the moment he went to bed at night, Harper did nothing but count. He streamed the entire process over the Internet and raised money for charity while doing it, but after three months of counting all day, every day, he finally reached the world record - 1 million. Now, a million might not sound like a lot, but think of this way. One thousand seconds is about 17 minutes, but a million seconds is more than 11 days. And a billion seconds, well, that's more than 31 years. There's no full video online of Harper counting all the way to a million, but you can watch John Harchick count all the way to 100,000, if you have 74 hours to spare. John also has some other channels. One involves more than 300 videos of himself eating carrots. Another, more than 3,000 videos of himself drinking water. Many of John's videos literally have no views. They are as lonely as a video on RU-vid can get. A great way to find such videos is a website made by Jon van der Kruisen. This website auto-plays videos on RU-vid that no one has yet watched. John and Jeremy, as well as Mike, the one breath counter counted like this. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and so on. But that's not the only way to count. And it doesn't seem to be the one we're born with. Additive counting is the one we're all familiar with, where each next step is just one added to the last. But what if we multiply it by a number instead? Well, that kind of counting is logarithmic, from "arithmos" meaning number and "logos" meaning ratio, proportion. On this scale, similar distances are similar proportions. One is a third of three and three is a third of nine. Four is a third of 12 and so on. Our brains perceive the world around us on a logarithmic scale. It's believed that almost all of our senses are multiplicative, not additive. For example, how loud we perceive a sound to be. Two boomboxes playing at the same volume don't sound twice as loud as one. In order to make a sound that is perceived as being about twice as loud as one boombox, you actually need ten times as many, so 10. And to double that loudness, you would need a hundred. And to double that loudness, you would need a thousand. Having an intuitive sense of logarithmic scales built into your brain is probably an advantage when it comes to natural selection and survival, because often proportion matters more than absolute value. For example, "is there one lion hiding over there in the shadows or two?" is a very different question than "are there ninety six lions about to attack us or ninety seven?" Sure, in both cases I'm just talking about one extra lion, but adding one lion to one lion, doubles the threat. Adding one lion to 96, well, that's basically nothing. Logarithmic thinking and feeling may explain why life seems to speed-up as we get older. It seems like I was a child for ever. And in college, in my early 20's, just whizzed by. And logarithmically, that makes sense, because each new year that I live is the smaller fraction of all the other years I've already lived. When you turn 2 years old, the last year of your life is half your life. But when you turn 81, that last year that you've lived, well, that's just a tiny part of the other 80 that you know. Logarithmic thinking isn't always helpful, especially in scenarios where proportion doesn't logically matter but we, nonetheless, act like it does. One of my favorite examples is the psychophysics of price paradox. This is something almost all of us do. Researchers found consistently that people are willing to put a lot of effort into saving 5 dollars of a 10 dollar purchase, but they won't put much effort into saving 5 five dollars of a 2,000 dollar purchase. It's 5 dollars saved either way, but our natural obsession with proportion leads us astray. Take a look at these pictures. Can you tell how many objects are in each of them? You probably can. It's like really easy. You can tell if there are zero, one, two, three or four objects in a photo without even needing to count. How are you doing that? Is it some sort of sixth sense? No. Psychologists call it "subitizing." We can, intuitively, at a glance, determine whether there are about four or fewer objects in a photo. This has been part of human culture for a very long time and it may be the reason so many tally systems from all over the world all through history wind up having to do something different when counting the number five. When estimating or comparing amounts above 4, the brain uses what's known as an approximate number system. It's a psychological ability we have. It's about 15 percent accurate. It two amounts are at least 15 percent different, we can tell. So, for example, 100 objects and 115 or a thousand and 1,150 or 1,200. If you wanna test the accuracy of your approximate number system Panamath has a pretty good test. We often take linear additive counting for granted, but it's not granted to us. We aren't born with it. We are, however, born with the ability to subitize and use an approximate number system. Children younger than the age of three can tell, without counting, that this line of 4 coins contains fewer coins than this line of 6, even if you spread the 4 coins out into a line that is physically bigger, longer than this line of 6. However, mysteriously, around the age of 3.5, children lose this ability and begin saying that this line of 6 coins contains fewer coins than this long line of just 4 coins, possibly because around this age the physical world of objects, physical sizes, is more salient in their minds. But then, when they begin to learn linear counting, they reverse back and begin again correctly saying that this line of 6 contains more coins than this line of 4, around the age of 4. The smallest physical thing science could ever hope to observe is the Planck length. In order to look at anything smaller, you'd need to have so much energy concentrated in such a small area a black hole would form and you would lose whatever you were looking at. Okay, with that in mind, here's a question. What number is halfway in-between 1 and 9. 5 seems like the obvious answer. There are four numbers on either side of 5, it's halfway between, right? Well, if you ask this question of a young child or a member of a culture that doesn't teach a linear additive number line, their answer will be 3. You see, they are exhibiting the human mind's natural logarithmic tendency, because 3 in that sense makes sense. Three is three times larger than 1, and 9 is three times larger than 3. Three is in the middle, proportionately. But what if we took that logarithmic number line and change the one to be the smallest thing we can observe, the Planck length, and the nine to be the largest thing we can observe, the observable universe. What would go in the middle? Well, as it turns out, we would. The number of Planck lengths you could stretch across a brain cell is equal to the number of your brain cells it would take to stretch all the way across the observable universe. sold So, welcome to the middle. And as always, thanks for watching.
So did I, but that's because we misunderstood the question. He wasn't asking what was _half_ of 9, but what number was _in between_ 1 and 9. 4.5 is half of 9, and is in between _zero_ and 9.
5:24 when i was a lifeguard, i had to constantly count the number of people in the pool. instead of counting individually, i would group them into 3’s.
RU-vid algorithm is spooky. The 1/2 lions vs the 96/97 lions is the same exact concept Tom Scott talked about in his video "why dark video is a terrible mess", the video recommended to me before this one 👀
Let's chat!! For the next hour I'll be replying to as many comments as humanly possible that are left on my recent video set in Whittier, Alaska. It is right over here: bit.ly/1QKKcuo
This is irrelevant but I thought I'd ask. Can you explain to me where the first pieces of dust came from that created the Big Bang? Why can't we just believe that a God at least created that dust?
Asher Meekhof the simple answer is, god is one of the choices we have,the problem is many people believe it`s the only choice,the irony is no evidence for that claim!
There's no evidence for a creator god at all. Some will say the bible is evidence but the bible is making the claim. The bible can't make the claim and also be evidence for its truthfulness. That's called circular reasoning.
Well, let's change that bros, for the better. If you're not interested in finding the video, here you go: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-WXQIMEVoR2A.html
A situation where additive counting beats logarithmic Doomslayer: "Are there 96 demons about to attack me, or are there 97...? ...I want to know, so when I kill them all, I know how many it was" *opening riff of BFG Division plays*
