Think You're Smarter Than Veritasium? Prove It in This Quiz

The law of large numbers suggests that flipping a fair coin 100 times will result in a number close to 50 heads, not exactly 50. This is because each flip has a 50% probability, but randomness introduces variation. The most probable range centers around 50, but getting exactly 50 is statistically less likely than a small spread like 48–52. Option C reflects the tendency of real-world randomness to approximate theoretical probability, not replicate it perfectly.

On Earth, air resistance slows down objects with a larger surface area, like a feather. Without this resistance—say, in a vacuum—both a feather and a hammer fall at the same rate, as shown in astronaut experiments and Veritasium’s vacuum chamber video. Option A is correct because it identifies air resistance as the primary factor influencing differential fall rates, not weight or gravity per se.

Veritasium recreated Galileo’s famous gravity experiment using drones to drop objects of different weights. He wanted to show that, ignoring air resistance, all objects accelerate at the same rate due to gravity. The video was meant to simplify abstract physics into visual learning. This directly links to Galileo’s Pisa Tower experiment, making Option D the correct choice.

The Monty Hall problem seems counterintuitive because we instinctively think odds are 50/50 after one door is opened. However, switching doors statistically improves the win probability to 2/3. Veritasium’s simulation showed this using computer trials. It’s a lesson in conditional probability: initial odds don’t reset just because new information is introduced. Option B is the mathematically accurate response.

On a curved hill (like in a brachistochrone setup), potential energy can convert into kinetic energy in a way that allows a ball to gain upward motion briefly. It’s not an illusion, but a demonstration of conservation of energy. Veritasium shows that what seems like an upward motion is actually part of an energy transfer arc. Option C is the right explanation.

When toast falls, it often starts from a small height (like a table) and begins rotating as it tips. Its center of mass and angular momentum often lead to half a rotation before it hits the floor—landing butter-side down. It’s not bad luck, it’s physics. Option B gives the scientifically backed reason supported by rotational dynamics.

Derek Muller often challenges viewer intuition because our brains are built to make survival decisions, not logically analyze complex physics. Optical illusions, probability errors, and bias blind spots are common in his content. He uses them to emphasize how human intuition can be systematically wrong. Option C is scientifically grounded in cognitive science and psychology.

In his randomness video, Veritasium demonstrated that humans tend to create patterns even when trying to be random. Our cognitive biases—like avoiding repetition or favoring "spread out" guesses—make us statistically predictable. True randomness lacks structure, but humans often default to what feels random instead. Option B is backed by both data and experiment in the video.

Zeno’s Paradox argues that an arrow in flight is motionless at every instant of time. This seemingly absurd idea critiques the concept of continuity and motion. Veritasium explains that while calculus resolves this paradox mathematically, it still fascinates philosophers and physicists alike. Option C summarizes the core contradiction Zeno wanted to highlight.

In the bridge video, Veritasium explored how small vibrations, when amplified by resonance, can collapse large structures. The Tacoma Narrows Bridge is a famous example where consistent wind caused oscillations to grow out of control. Resonance is when a system vibrates at its natural frequency due to repeated input—leading to structural failure. Option A explains this core principle.