📝 Veritasium Blog

Why Small Animals Are Surprisingly Strong: The Science Behind Strength and Size

Have you ever wondered why a tiny squirrel can jump almost as high as a horse, or how an ant can lift objects many times its own body weight? At first glance, it might seem like smaller animals are just incredibly muscular or have some secret superpower. But the truth lies deeper—in the physics and biology of muscle structure and how size affects strength.

The Curious Case of Jumping Heights

If you observe a horse, a dog, and a squirrel, you’ll notice an interesting phenomenon: they all jump to roughly the same height under similar conditions. This is surprising because we might expect the heavier horse to jump much lower. In reality, smaller animals like squirrels make much bigger jumps relative to their body size.

Muscle Structure: Springs in Parallel and Series

Muscles are made up of tiny fundamental units called sarcomeres. You can think of these as miniature springs. The way these sarcomeres are arranged in the muscle affects both the muscle’s strength and stretch:

• Length of Muscle (Stretch): Determined by how many sarcomeres are arranged in series (end to end).
• Strength of Muscle: Depends on how many sarcomeres are arranged in parallel (side by side).

The thicker the muscle (more sarcomeres in parallel), the stronger it is. This means muscle strength is primarily related to its cross-sectional area.

Strength vs. Weight: Why Size Matters

Here’s where scaling comes into play:

• Muscle cross-sectional area (strength) scales with the square of an animal's height.
• Weight scales with the cube of the animal's height because weight depends on volume.

As animals get smaller, their weight decreases much faster than their muscle strength. This leads to smaller animals having a much higher strength-to-weight ratio than larger ones. That’s why ants can carry loads many times heavier than themselves, and why squirrels can make impressive jumps compared to their size.

What This Means for Us

This fascinating insight highlights how biological scaling affects performance. It explains why small animals are "overpowered" relative to their size, not because their muscles are inherently stronger, but because their weight shrinks faster than their muscle strength as they get smaller.

If you’re curious to dive deeper into the science of muscle mechanics and scaling laws, there are detailed resources and videos that explore this topic extensively.

Understanding the relationship between size, strength, and muscle structure not only satiates curiosity about the animal kingdom but also enriches our appreciation of biological design and physics in nature. Next time you see a squirrel leap or an ant carry a heavy load, you’ll know it’s all about the amazing mathematics of muscle and scale.

From Russian Math Feuds to Google Search: The Surprising Power of Markov Chains

Have you ever wondered how many times you need to shuffle a deck of cards to truly randomize it? Or how scientists figured out the amount of uranium needed to build a nuclear bomb? Or even how Google knows exactly which page you’re searching for? The answers to these seemingly unrelated questions all trace back to a fascinating mathematical breakthrough that began over a century ago in Russia—a story of rivalry, insight, and innovation centered around something called Markov chains.

The Great Russian Math Feud: Free Will vs. Probability

In 1905, Russia was deeply divided politically between the Tsarists, who wanted to maintain the status quo, and socialists pushing for reform. This rift extended even into the world of mathematics, where two prominent mathematicians took opposing sides:

• Pavel Nekrasov (“the Tsar of Probability”), a religious man who believed mathematics could explain free will and divine will.
• Andrey Markov (“Andrey the Furious”), an atheist who argued that math had nothing to do with free will and criticized Nekrasov's approach as unrigorous.

Their debate centered on the law of large numbers, a principle stating that as you repeat independent trials (like flipping a fair coin many times), the average outcome converges to the expected probability (roughly 50/50 for heads or tails). Nekrasov believed that seeing this convergence implied the events must be independent—essentially, acts of free will.

Markov challenged this by showing that even dependent events—where one outcome influences the next—can still exhibit this convergence. To prove it, he analyzed the sequence of letters in a famous Russian poem, Eugene Onegin. Letters in text are clearly dependent on preceding letters (e.g., vowels and consonants tend to follow certain patterns), yet Markov demonstrated that these dependent sequences still obeyed the law of large numbers.

This led to the birth of Markov chains, mathematical models that describe systems where the next state depends only on the current state, not the full history. Markov’s conclusion was clear and powerful: free will is not necessary to do probability.

From Poetry to Nuclear Physics: The Monte Carlo Method

Fast forward to World War II, when scientists faced a daunting problem: understanding how neutrons behave inside a nuclear bomb. The complex interactions of trillions of neutrons were impossible to calculate exactly.

Enter Stanislaw Ulam, a mathematician who, while recovering from illness, pondered a simpler question: What are the chances of winning a random game of Solitaire? Realizing an analytical solution was impossible, he proposed playing many games and counting wins to approximate the probability—a method of statistical sampling.

Inspired by this idea, Ulam and John von Neumann applied the concept to simulate neutron behavior by generating many random chains of neutron interactions, using Markov chains to handle the dependencies between steps. Running these simulations on early computers like the ENIAC allowed them to estimate whether a chain reaction would sustain or explode—a critical insight for nuclear weapon design.

They named this approach the Monte Carlo method, after the famous casino, highlighting the role of randomness and chance in their computations. This method revolutionized physics and engineering, enabling scientists to tackle otherwise intractable problems through probabilistic simulation.

Markov Chains and the Rise of Google

Jumping ahead to the explosion of the internet in the 1990s, the challenge shifted to finding relevant information amid millions of webpages. Early search engines like Yahoo ranked pages by keyword frequency, but this was easily manipulated and provided poor quality results.

Two Stanford PhD students, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, had a breakthrough: they realized that links between webpages act like endorsements. Just like library books that are popular have many checkout stamps, webpages linked by many others are more important.

They modeled the web as a Markov chain, where each webpage is a state, and links represent transitions. By simulating a “random surfer” clicking links, they calculated the steady-state probability of being on each page, giving a ranking called PageRank. Importantly, their algorithm discounted low-quality link farms, preventing easy manipulation.

To avoid the surfer getting stuck in loops, they introduced a damping factor allowing random jumps, ensuring the model explored the entire web. This innovation powered Google, launched in 1998, which rapidly surpassed competitors by delivering far better search results.

Beyond Search: Markov Chains in Language and AI

Markov’s original idea of predicting letters depending only on the previous letter evolved over time. Claude Shannon, the father of information theory, expanded the concept to sequences of words, showing that longer histories improved prediction quality.

Modern language models, like those behind Gmail’s autocomplete or advanced AI chatbots, build on these principles but add mechanisms like attention to weigh the importance of different parts of the text context, enabling nuanced understanding and generation of human language.

The Memoryless Magic of Markov Chains

What makes Markov chains so powerful is their memoryless property: the future depends only on the present state, not the entire past. This simplification allows incredibly complex systems—from neutron physics to web surfing to language processing—to be modeled and understood.

While not all systems fit this model perfectly (feedback loops in climate change, for example, complicate predictions), Markov chains have become a cornerstone of probability and applied mathematics.

How Many Shuffles to Randomize a Deck?

Returning to the original question: how many shuffles does it take to randomize a deck of 52 cards? Surprisingly, the answer is just seven riffle shuffles to achieve near-perfect randomness.

This can be understood by modeling each shuffle as a step in a Markov chain, where each arrangement of the deck is a state. After seven shuffles, the distribution of deck states is approximately uniform.

Conclusion

From a century-old feud between Russian mathematicians to the heart of nuclear physics, internet search, and AI language models, Markov chains have quietly transformed our world. They reveal how dependent, complex systems can still be understood through probability, and how simple mathematical insights can lead to revolutionary technologies.

So next time you shuffle cards, search the web, or use predictive text, remember the fascinating chain of ideas—pun intended—that made it all possible.

Want to dive deeper into these concepts?
Check out Brilliant.org for interactive lessons on math, probability, AI, and more. From understanding Markov chains to exploring the math behind shuffling cards, Brilliant makes learning engaging and fun. Visit brilliant.org/veritasium for a free 30-day trial and 20% off annual premium subscriptions.

References: Inspired by the work of Andrey Markov, Stanislaw Ulam, John von Neumann, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, Claude Shannon, and many others who have shaped the mathematical tools we rely on every day.

The Untold Story of Citicorp Center: Engineering Marvel, Near Disaster, and Ethical Triumph

In the heart of Manhattan stands the Citicorp Center, a striking skyscraper completed in 1977 that was hailed as an architectural and engineering marvel. Yet, behind its sleek design lies one of the most dramatic and ethically challenging engineering stories of the 20th century—one that nearly ended in catastrophe but ultimately became a testament to professional integrity and innovation.

A Bold Architectural Challenge: Building Around a Church

In the 1960s, Citicorp sought to build a new headquarters in Manhattan. The site posed a unique challenge: an entire city block was available for development—except for Saint Peter’s Church, whose pastor insisted it remain physically distinct and maintain its own identity. The solution was unprecedented: design a skyscraper that would stand on stilts, with the church occupying the ground space beneath it.

Architect Hugh Stubbins and structural engineer Bill LeMessurier collaborated to create a tower supported on four stilts placed at the midpoints of each side, rather than the corners as in typical buildings. This created a complex engineering problem: how to transfer the building’s gravity load and resist wind forces without the usual corner columns.

The Ingenious Structural Solution: Chevron Bracing and Tuned Mass Damper

LeMessurier’s flash of inspiration was the introduction of six layers of diagonal chevron braces on each face of the building. These massive braces—some nearly 40 meters long—channeled gravity and wind loads from the upper stories down to the stilts. Because transporting braces this large was impossible through Manhattan’s streets, they were fabricated in pieces and welded on-site.

While this design saved considerable weight and cost, it made the building more flexible, causing noticeable sway in strong winds. To address this, LeMessurier incorporated a tuned mass damper (TMD)—a massive 400-ton concrete block mounted atop the building, suspended on springs and viscous dampers. This device oscillates out of phase with the building’s sway, dissipating energy and reducing motion by about 50%. This was the first use of a TMD in a skyscraper, pioneering a technology now standard in tall buildings worldwide.

The Terrifying Discovery: A Fatal Structural Flaw

About a year after opening, in 1978, LeMessurier received a phone call from a student questioning the building’s design regarding wind forces hitting its corners, known as quartering winds. Intrigued and concerned, LeMessurier re-examined the calculations and discovered a grave oversight: the building’s bolted braces—installed instead of the originally designed welded ones—were insufficient to handle the increased stress from quartering winds.

The original design called for four bolts per joint, but under quartering winds, some braces required as many as 14 bolts for safety. Furthermore, dynamic wind effects could increase stresses by up to 60%, and if the tuned mass damper failed (for example, due to power loss), winds as “low” as 110 km/h could cause catastrophic failure.

The Ethical Dilemma and Heroic Response

LeMessurier faced a profound ethical crisis: stay silent and risk thousands of lives or act immediately and face potential professional ruin. After consulting experts and informing Citicorp executives, he orchestrated a secret, round-the-clock repair operation—Project Serene.

Workers welded steel plates over more than 200 critical joints after hours, reinforcing the structure without disrupting tenants. Emergency systems were put in place, including backup power for the tuned mass damper and a 10-block evacuation plan formulated with the Red Cross.

The Close Call: Hurricane Ella and the Repair Completion

As repairs were underway, Hurricane Ella approached New York in September 1978 with winds reaching 200 km/h. The city prepared to evacuate thousands, but at the last moment, the hurricane veered out to sea. Repairs were completed shortly thereafter, making the building capable of withstanding storms far stronger than any previously recorded.

Legacy: Engineering Ethics, Innovation, and Continuing Impact

Though initially kept secret, the story emerged publicly in the 1990s, with LeMessurier praised for his courage and integrity. The incident became a landmark case study in engineering ethics worldwide.

The Citicorp Center also set a precedent for the use of tuned mass dampers, now used in many of the tallest buildings globally, from Taipei 101 to Tokyo’s skyscrapers, enhancing safety in wind- and earthquake-prone regions.

Lessons Learned

• Innovative engineering requires rigorous, continual review: Even groundbreaking designs must anticipate all environmental forces, including less obvious ones like quartering winds.
• Ethical responsibility outweighs personal risk: LeMessurier’s decision to disclose and fix the flaw highlights the paramount duty engineers have to public safety.
• Transparency and communication are critical: While secrecy helped prevent panic, the eventual sharing of this story educates future engineers and the public.
• Technological advances like tuned mass dampers are invaluable: They allow architects to push boundaries while maintaining safety and comfort.

Conclusion

The Citicorp Center story is more than an engineering case; it is a powerful narrative about courage, responsibility, and innovation. It reminds us that behind every skyscraper, there are engineers whose decisions can literally hold up—or bring down—entire cities. Bill LeMessurier’s legacy endures not only in steel and concrete but in the ethical standards that guide the profession today.

If you found this story inspiring and want to learn more about engineering marvels and ethics, stay tuned for more deep dives into the world of structural innovation and human courage.