What Is the Most Average Thing? 

Probably being born

Virtual particles? Most common thing in the universe kinda? I don't really know what I'm talking about so someone please elaborate on my claim.

Breathing.

All together I think the question is flawed because what "the average of all things" means varies from person to person. If we are talking about tallying up everything in the universe and the parts that make each up and counted them as separate things and then found which was the most likely to be chosen at random, then I would say neutrinos. I have been told there are roughly a billion neutrinos for every hydrogen atom in the universe.

I feel you've purposely skewed your definitions to avoid the most average thing, which would be vacuum.

hey you’re here! hope everyone who sees this has a good day :)

Goooood ooooneeee hahah

Yooo, ive watched you since I was like 7!

future engineer! @@ekkekrosing8454

Should be an F for gross conceptual errors. Neither number is correct. They used Wolfram Alpha which has an incorrect radius for UY Scuti. Quarks, like electrons, are point-like and so have zero size. This number 10^-18 looks like it comes from an experiment placing an upper limit on size. It's scientifically unjustified to use it in this manner. Geometric mean is not physically meaningful.

and that we, humans, are closer to be the size of the biggest star, than to a quark. thats insane.

humans are closer to the size of the universe than a planck length

⁠@@Kapulluswe’re a billion times closer the to the biggest thing than we are to the smallest thing

Right?!! Even with the cut scene to the below average knitting, itself

knitter please...

more like a triple take

RIGHT. Replayed that three times just to be _sure_ it was "knitter".

*Insert HE'S A KNITTER! Arthur meme*

So therefore the most average thing is a well fed, adult, female flea.

This is such an interesting thought, thanks for sharing :)

Ooti Scooti lol

So actually like 10^6m, or ~.1 Earth. Very good point and I'm not sure why he didn't do this as that's the mean people usually think about...

Thanks, I went to the comments to talk about the geometric mean, happy to see someone already did!

And with that it was MAXIMIZATION TIME!

@@lonestarr1490 and I'm afraid the limit has not been found yet

in another video i learnt that when planes were made, it only has 3-5 seats but it's airplane companies that has used to the practices' of adding 2-4 seats in each line depending on plane width. so those premium luxury planes we see are the real deal that should've been norms but for profits reasons, we have been robed of them, just like everlasting lamps ,etc

And people have grown... in width

​@@JakkeJakobsenand height. The average height has increased.

More than seems. It is without a doubt the geometric mean. I watched this video to the end hoping Joe would talk about that... fairly disappointed.

ever heard of a geometric mean

​@@petterlarsson7257it's a pun

this is totally a scientist level joke

OMG

This was such a nonsense comment until I watched the video

At least Vsauce uses correct numbers and doesn't confuse arithmetic mean with geometric mean.

But DO chairs exist?

@@PhysicsPolicei mean…its PBS

Eh, Be Smart is actually a decent channel. At least, it promotes education and learning.

@@HiGlowie Yep. It’s got a lot of potential. That’s why videos like this one are such a disappointment.

same I checked it qgain just to make sure

Wat did u call me homie?

@@fep_ptcp883 n word

My jaw dropped for a second

In reality if Thomas was added then I shoulda taken out Jordan 😂

@@besmart yeah, for sure, mj definitely had him blacklisted. I don't see him passing the ball to mj if he's the point guard on that team

​@@michaelbrantley6039 tbf Scottie, Larry and Magic had beef with the BB Pistons. Not unreasonably, but how much of it was on Zeke and how much of it was guilt by association with his team-mates is a reasonable question.

@@somethinglikethat2176 zeke was the one that organized/led that disrespectful, unsportsmanlike like walj off at the end of the bulls-pistons series the year before

NO. CAPES.

Pull yourself together!

😂😂😂😂

Someone list the timestamp for it please

@@gavinjones 2:26 I think

​@@almach6279i see it now, thanks

Da-na-na-na-na-na-na-naaaaah

Are they right-handed, a resident of China, not a car/bank account owner, and making less than 12k a year?

Also UY scuti being the largest structure is arbitrary at best and wrong at worst. Firstly black holes exist and secondly the reasoning for galactic filaments and galaxies themselves being dismissed was bs.

yeah the conclusion to the video and some definitions not being clarified kinda made it not be as educational in the end

Didn’t he decide that he was going with volume and not mass? That would eliminate black holes as they have little to no volume. The size of the event horizon is just how light interacts with it, not the size of the actual mass of the object

​@@KungFuKeni And atoms and molecules are mostly empty, as we are. So jos empty reasoning goes out of the window as a galaxy isn't more empty than you and I, or a protein, or an atom.

@@Canyon_Lark black holes absolutely have a volume, at least according to GR

Thank you! I really think this one might stick.

That's way overly complicated. In school, I just learned it was: Mean = (What people mean by) Average Median = Medium Mode = The most

yes that

Didnt he take the mean like 10^( (log10(a) + log10(b)) /2)? He just picked the middle number on a log scale

Yeah I was thinking the same thing but you uh said it first

@@einfischnamenspanda3306 Yes, and that’s equivalent to multiplying them and taking the square root by the rules of logarithms, hence it’s the geometric mean :)

@@DrAndrewSteele Damn you are right. Guess thats why no one commented it before 👀

Easy peasy. Simply pass to the limit of that averaging process (the limit does indeed exist by virtue of the sandwich theorem).

If we're averaging everything, it's vacuum.

Honestly, I was gonna scroll until I realized that this is a line of reasoning that, for once, actually terminates in our current understanding of QFT (for now).

Generally speaking, its quite the opposite - the more "things" you're averaging over, the more stable the value becomes. That's simply because each individual "thing" contributes less to averaging process so removing or changing it alters the average less. Of course it depends on exactly what you mean by "fixed value". If you mean a mathematically exact answer then the stability is identical regardless of how many "things" you're averaging over, as the change in any one thing would change the average whether the total number of things is 2 or 2 quintillion. But that also doesn't matter as its not possible to get mathematically exact answers in almost any case, and certainly not for any interesting case. Anything that requires measurement (such as mass or volume) is immediately cut out due to the fact that our measurement devices are not infinitely accurate. Sure you can measure the height of a basketball team to the nearest inch and average that, but that average is not going to be accurate as people don't grow in exactly one-inch increments. Almost all of the members will be an eighth or a quarter or a 38234/9428928th above or below an exact inch. Even with simple counted numbers though its often difficult to get a mathematically exact average, primarily for one reason: By the time your data set is large enough to be interesting, it simultaneously becomes extremely difficult to the point of impossible to be sure you counted every "thing" exactly once - no misses and no double counts. No country on the planet knows exactly how many citizens they have, for example. Even the best census system is going to miss some homeless people or those who actively evade it. Some will double count because a person happened to move to an area that just completed the census to one that it hasn't yet reached, etc. Tens or hundreds of millions is just too many "things" to count accurately and therefore your "fixed value" will also not be exactly accurate. But that's fine. As Joe's definition near the start of the video implies, an average is useful to get the general idea of a set of data. They don't have to be mathematically exact in order to fulfill that purpose - they just have to be "close enough", and that vagueness allows sufficient flexibility for an average to be considered "stable" as data sets get larger and any one "thing" becomes less important to the overall trend. (Barring severe outliers. Losing just one Bezos or Musk would significantly alter the mean income in the US for example, because their enormous wealth skews that particular average so far that any one of them is sufficient to outweigh a good double-digit percent of the lowest end of the scale. Wouldn't affect the median much though, which is why median income has become the preferred thing to talk about over the past few decades. Still way too easy to find the mean average though, especially in publications that are intentionally trying to make their country look better. The skew in the US is worse than most due to those small handful of billionaires, but the "problem" of having a small number of overly wealthy people skewing the mean exists in every country, even if its not to the same degree as billionaires.)

@@altrag But if that is, then the more you average the things out, the more things you are considering to do average over and thus it will just widen the range of values that were taken to draw the average. That is why it will just produce uncertainty in the actual central measure.

Ong he did that on purpose bro😭😭

Yeah... I missheard it and was already looking for a new science channel lmao

I never knew philosophy of physics is a thing, good luck for you in your studies

I just commented myself that, for what is essentially an exposition on the practical applications of theoretical epistemology, this video dunks pretty hard on the practice of philosophy.

@@fruity4820 Lol, I abandoned that and went to law school instead. As soon as I graduated, I realized that as fascinating as I find it, nobody else gives a crap. Now I study an esoteric area of Constitutional law with so few experts that I know just about all of them and I know more about it than almost all of them despite not being remotely well known myself. But unlike philisophy of physics, the esoteric area I study is the amendment process and I'm working on actually making the country better using it.

@@Sam_on_RU-vid that is fascinating to hear and thanks for sharing? In your new law job with a (seemingly) clearer validation signal, do you still find the curiosity that a "philosophy of physics" may evoke in this new job? In other words, what is it that you are compromising on by not pursuing philosophy of physics. Extremely interested in your thought process. You do not seem to be a victim of the sunk cost fallacy and kudos to you!

@@neeratyoy I use what I learned studying philosophy all the time. I learned systematic critical thinking. I learned parsing dense language. I learned digging at concepts to find inconsistencies and finding arguments to reconcile them. I learned presentkng arguments and proving points. In law school, when we learned the Rule Against Perpetuities, most people struggled with it. I wrote down the rule in 1st order logic and got it pretty easily. I was far from the only philosophy major in law school. It is a fairly common path.

WTF, same. Right after the break dancing too. I almost fell off my chair.

Same..good thing he brought out those knitting needles..otherwise.

Oh, boy.

​@_evildoer ikr I wasn't watch and I quickly turned my head back to the screen and saw him holding up knitting stuff 😂😂 man he's even got a an ockward smile where I paused like "see I said knitting 😅😅" 0:54

fr

Exactly. Took me totally by surprise and had skip back.

And the geometric mean has no physical significance. This is just numerology.

isn't mole unit of amount (how many ÷ avogadro number (big constant))?

Hydrogen was one of my first thoughts on thinking about this. But really, if we're talking about the entire universe, the average thing is going to be whatever dark energy is, isn't it?

@@hunterG60k Dark energy is still entirely theoretical. There is zero evidence for it other than the fact that it must exist to balance the equations physicists currently have which otherwise explain the entire Universe. Personally, I prefer Occam's Razor which states that it is much more likely they are simply mistaken, rather than there being some invisible substance permeating all reality; this is also based on the fact that every model of the Universe devised by humanity which preceded this one was also wrong, or at least incomplete.

@@hunterG60k exactly. I am not sure if and how to consider dark energy and dark matter while counting things.. even if they exist, do they exist as particles? And if they are particles, are they more massive than a hydrogen atom? Because if they are significantly massive then the number of particles will be lesser even if total amoumt is higher. And for computing mean or mode we need the number of things And because of this i wrote "considering only normal matter" :-)

@@RandomGeometryDashStuff Yes exactly. So of the SI base units, mass, length and number of moles can be used to measure size.. rest of the units are independent of size.

The study he referenced was about the arithmetic mean, so he's just wrong either way. I see this "math thing" repeated more than any other. Internet fake math like "most can't be above average!" or "Pi contains every sequence of numbers!" should not be referenced by educational channels..

@@EpicMathTime I couldn't agree more with you. That's the fine difference between channels that are about the actual science vs the ones that are only about the flashiness and the wows.

Yeah, the most important part (this is a logarithmic scale on base 10) was not really addressed. Since the numbers are on a logarithmic scale, the "middle" doesn't occur at the arithmetic mean.

Exactly! And there's no physical significance to the geometric mean. This is pure numerology.

@@EpicMathTime This doesn't really address the concern, which is why did they place the numbers on a logarithmic scale to begin with? This isn't physically justified.

I’m pretty sure that Vsauce did this exact thing in a video

I'm almost positive this is a radio lab episode from a couple years ago

😂

Jordan disliked this video

Finally

On average, a person _do_ have an average of 2 legs. While there are people with less than 2 legs, Legs Georg has enough surplus legs on him to pull the mean back to 2.

Yeah, probably like 1.99999~, so basically 2

@@madhououinkyomathere are lots more people with less than 2 legs than more…

@@scrydedoesyt Not the point, most people have 2 legs. Just pull your calculator.

i meant to reply to the other msg my bad@@madhououinkyoma

So there is a driver out there that is so bad they bring down the average skill of millions of other drivers?

@@extragoogleaccount6061 the guy with NULL number plate who receives thousands of tickets and police reports a day.

@@extragoogleaccount6061 Maybe. All I'm saying, it's possible.

thats what i was thinking

Maybe they were shooting this video before the discovery of stephenson 218, but still even the largest known star is not as big as the biggest supermassive black hole

Exactly!!!!

awesome answer!

@@benjamintheidiot should be an obvious solution to most but noooo :(

Regardless of the law you should have a moral obligation to not murder

Right ✅

steven he:he's a FAILURE!

untrue, because then the average wouldbe in the 6-7 range given that 93% of people are 6s or 7s. 5 isnt always average

@@jasonhoffarth 93 are skill level 6 7 are skill level 1 The average would be something like 5.95. I added a comma, hopefully that will make it more obvious!

​@@jasonhoffarthThe average is in the 1-6 range, which is _less than 6,_ and 93% of people have skill level 6, so 93% of people are above average. The example couldn't be simpler. It should be immediately obvious.

I would safely say that about 7% of people are really really terrible at driving because they are either just learning how to drive or are very old and shouldn't be anymore. But really, when people say they are "better than average", the mean "better than the average driver", not "better than the averaged aggregate skill level of all drivers". Mathematically, what the mean is probably closer to the definition of median.

I think average refers to the mode or median driver rather than the mean here though

it's easier to make new people than to stop old people from dying, I guess

It's probably going to go up with the ageing population problem occurring. Ideally you want the average lower than higher

Why is it scary

@@hjuy4049 Ageism. Some ignorant old people like to blame problems of the world on younger people, which makes no sense. Trees take time to grow and so do problems.

@@ninjaguysith That is very silly

And now I'm having a average pp crisis

🤔