Neat; it's a bit dense for non-physicists, though. Who's up for creating an SVG version of this with links for the words? I don't think I could do it justice with my very minimal understanding of physics and SVG.
I am not sure whether I agree with the "Compton limit." A particle can be spatially localized as much as you want if you include high velocities in its wave function, and that can happen in tight bound states as well as in high energy processes. To offer an example of the former, the radius of the s1 atomic orbital shrinks as the nuclear charge increases, and if there is a limit on nuclear charge it is determined by processes unrelated to the electron itself. For the latter, the total energies of all particles eventually start acting like photons w.r.t velocity as their rest mass is overwhelmed, and the gravitation or inertia of a beam of light is impossible to rationalize as mass or put on that chart.
When plotted that way, it is indeed strange that the trend in density of large-scale structures (from Sun up to superclusters) is heading towards an intersection with the "black holes" line (Schwarzschild radius?)
It's even stranger that when you calculate Schwarzschild radius for the mass of the universe, it is roughly the radius of the observable universe (1e53kg --> 15 billion ly)
The 1e53 kg estimate is based on the observable universe (radius 46 Gly) being flat, and ordinary matter being 4.8% of what's keeping it flat.[1]
Is it meaningful that just this baryonic matter has a Schwarzschild radius near that of the Hubble (14.5 Gly) and Cosmic Event (16.7 Gly) horizons?[2][3]
Then there's the question of how much baryonic matter we actually see...[4]
My brain keeps thinking the axes are in decibels than plain logarithms. I think I have never seen a graph with a log axis compressed so hard that the major tick interval is over 1.
No, presumably it's about as hard to detect things on ever larger scales as it is on ever smaller scales, so we'd expect to always be approximately in the middle.
Of course they are! Very limited, derivative human experience, in the realm of squinting at numbers coming out of exotic research instruments and theories thereof -- but still human experience.
A being the size of the solar system would not be able to see any farther into the universe than we can with our telescopes, because it's about what light has reached the solar system and not at all about our sense of scale in interpreting it.
(Kottke is great but usually these are best changed to the original source. That URL is still a good place to start.)