https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1914273116
to get an ECG which is one of several strategies they could use. (e.g. lately I've been interested in Heart Rate Variability which has gotten me looking at reading heart rate with cameras, radars, pressure gauges, ultrasound, etc.)
Incredible to think of the volume of all the blood it's pumping around.
It's probably not as dramatic an issue as that. It could also be sensory - past a certain size, in order to be sensitive enough to detect damage and deal with normal conditions, it would have to be irritated all the time, or numb to potential hazards.
There are all sorts of second and third order consequences limiting how various vital systems can interplay, so more than likely, it's a combination of a whole bunch of things that subtly limit the overall size to where it's at, and any further increase degrades its abilities to survive.
They're just so huge. Their brains are 4 times larger than a human's brain, but we share a whole lot of structure, from the cellular level to the macro, with two lobes, some shared sulcal features (same folding pattern) which indicates that we likely share enough connectomic structure for the ways in which our brains operate to produce similar conscious experiences. Someday, in the distant future, we should be able to use BCI to feel exactly what it's like to be a blue whale (and vice versa.)
Their brains have similar cortical structure, but even though the brains are about 7 times larger, their cortical surface area is only 2-3 times that of a human. It really puts into context how bizarrely massive our brains are for our relatively tiny size.
For contrast, titanosaur hearts would have been around 500 lbs and up to 6 feet in diameter, and their brains were about the size of a big walnut. These land animals were up to 40m long and 100 tons.
Anyway - physics of tissue and frailties of being made of meat are what keep the whales from getting much bigger.
You could also claim our bodies have massive surface area, molecularly speaking. We just are factory-configured to not sense things that are too small to matter to ourselves as a whole (like small bugs and below)
There are measurements suited to purpose, then there are "technically you could do that" measurements, and it's the former we'd want to use when measuring what sorts of power and pressure and material properties of the vascular system and cardiac tissue of a whale. Enormous amounts of blood are being pumped around, and I'd have to imagine you're in the million miles of arteries and veins and capillaries ballpark, so there's a lot of pressure holding that mass back.
That'd be a fun model to figure out for a weekend project - what sorts of forces are we talking about - how efficient is it compared to say, a hummingbird, or a human, or an earthworm heart?
Muscle power output increases with cross section area, ~L^2, not with volume. The heart have no separate power unit. It relies on the same muscle walls that comprise its chambers to power itself.
What do you mean by workload? Are you referring to the oxygen cost per stroke, or what?
Side note, would positing an argument online without doing an AI fact check first be considered rawdogging your answer?
It seems fitting.
Cardiac tissue is a surface. Blood is a volume. I think they’re saying blue whale hearts are near the largest current biology can evolve. Which is interesting because it suggests if we could e.g. engineer whales with carbon-fiber hearts or whatever, they’d evolve to grow even bigger.
Hm? Aren't blue whales the biggest animals to ever have lived that we know of?
/s
Fascinating to learn such details!
https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/lowest-he...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_shrew
"The Etruscan shrew has a very fast heart beating rate, up to 1511 beats/min (25 beats/s) and a relatively large heart muscle mass, 1.2% of body weight."
(to illustrate - machine guns typically do 600-900 rounds/min)
I wonder whose muscle fiber is stronger per unit mass - the whale's or the shrew's...