Is "human scale" closer to the very small than the very large? I think it is.
OR is that just a function of the limits on perception and measurement placed on us by our scale?
https://sauropods.win/@futurebird/113582806976587119
@futurebird The LHC can probe physics on scales down to about 10^-20 meters (I think). But the Planck length, the smallest scale theoretical physicists consider having any real meaning, is […]
@futurebird I think of 'human scale' as the range where you can pretend Newton's model of the universe is vaguely correct. No relativity (big things) and no quantum effects (small things). I […]
@futurebird
Superclusters are about 10^23 m across, whereas an electron is no larger than 10^-22.
So we're pretty close to the middle, but maybe slightly closer to small.
@futurebird
The limits of human perception do not define the limits of the universe. Universal scales quickly make human scales seem irrelevant.
Humans have massive trouble processing […]
@futurebird
Ages ago I read a popular science book that brought up the concept of 'information space' in relation to physical space.
[…]
@futurebird That reminds me of this representation of human experience:
tiny.tilde.website/@astrid/111…
I tried to reproduce it but ended up with something slightly […]
@futurebird The Planck length is 1.6e-35 m, and the diameter of the observable universe is 8.8e26 m. The human scale (around 1 m) is thus, in one sense at least, closer to the large than to the […]
@futurebird I will go with the risky answer (risking being boring) and say the human scale is right in the middle. I guess that's your second option. In the middle meaning: Between what is very […]
2024-12-02 nazokiyoubinbou ┃ edited ┃ 1💬
@futurebird We (very approximately) know the limits of the very large, but we're still struggling even to find the limits of the very small. Even just looking at atoms alone (much less […]
────
────