A persistant spatial illusion

[Magical Realist]

Magical Realist:



If you go over to the object and pull out a ruler, you'll measure it to be the same length as always, so in that sense objects don't really shrink. Obviously.

But the size of the image of a distant object on your retina really is smaller than the size of the image it forms when it is closer to you. And the reason for that has to do with the angle I told you about in my first reply. So, in that sense, there's no illusion. You see a real image of objects you look at, not an imaginary or illusory image.



It's all very well to be flippant, but I don't think you actually understand what "rays" of light are. In optics, rays are constructs. Notionally, every point on an object emits an infinite number of "rays" that spread out in all directions from that point. Obviously, your eye, at a distance, only intersects a certain portion of those rays. Different rays from opposite ends of an object may converge, diverge or be parallel, depending on which of the infinite number of rays you care to examine.

The number of imaginary "rays" doesn't in any way correlate with the intensity of a perceived source of light. Rays are a geometrical fiction only. Light actually travels as a wave that carries energy. In general, the wavefronts at any point are perpendicular to the imaginary "rays". Unlike the rays, which are infinite, the waves have a definite frequency, wavelength, speed and intensity.



Rays are a geometrical construct. They have zero width. You are obviously thinking of something like a group of rays, and you're selecting that group from among an infinity of possible such groups.



I'm glad you're so willing to keep an open mind about these things. Hopefully, now that I've taught you something about geometrical optics, you're just a little more knowledgeable than before about that subject.

What do you say?

Tks for explaining this. There's a point in posting in these groups where you have to decide to either be nice and quickly take people's word for it or keep asking your question in new ways until you get an answer you can understand. I couldn't connect the objective existence of an angle of imaginary rays of light with why an image of an object should appear smaller with distance. But if space itself is based on the abstract principles of geometry then it seems a given. Does physical space incorporate only euclidian geometry or are other geometries possible for it as well?

 

[James R]

I couldn't connect the objective existence of an angle of imaginary rays of light with why an image of an object should appear smaller with distance.

Why not? I would have thought that it's the simplest and most intuitive way of understanding the situation.

But if space itself is based on the abstract principles of geometry then it seems a given. Does physical space incorporate only euclidian geometry or are other geometries possible for it as well?

Our physical space is noneuclidean, but only on larger scales than we're normally familiar with. Euclidean geometry works just fine for stuff you can see with your naked eye that's reasonably close to you (i.e. on Earth).

 

[Magical Realist]

Why not? I would have thought that it's the simplest and most intuitive way of understanding the situation.

I was thinking how when you project an image thru space it only gets bigger not smaller. I couldn't understand what would counteract this natural tendency of lightwaves to disperse in space. I guess I still don't grasp it fully. Is every expanding eidolon or "bubble" of light filled with an infinite array of images of the object of all different sizes depending on the size of the orifice it it transmits to? If our eyes were bigger would the object be seen as bigger?

 

[James R]

I was thinking how when you project an image thru space it only gets bigger not smaller.

Images aren't projected through space. An image (technical point for the informed: I'm talking real images, not virtual) is only formed where you have light rays converging on a "screen" of some kind. In space, there are only the light rays (or waves).

Think of a camera taking a photo of an object. You adjust the length of the lens to focus on that particular object. In doing that, you're selecting a particular place in space (the film or image sensor) where many light rays from each single point on the object will converge to a single point on the image plane. When the camera is out of focus, different light rays from a single point on the object converge to different points on the film or sensor, making the image fuzzy. You're dealing with the same light no matter how you set the camera. The image you get depends on how you choose to observe the light.

Images can be larger or smaller than the object they are imaging. It only depends on how the imaging is done. A camera forms a smaller image of an object on its film. A film projector forms a larger image of the film onto a distant screen.

I couldn't understand what would counteract this natural tendency of lightwaves to disperse in space. I guess I still don't grasp it fully.

Light that is emitted naturally spreads out from objects in all directions. But when you make an image, you're only ever selecting a small part of that light. You "catch" only some of the rays that go out, and use those to form an image.

Is every expanding eidolon or "bubble" of light filled with an infinite array of images of the object of all different sizes depending on the size of the orifice it it transmits to?

Yes, in effect. There is no image until you make one. There's only the light.

If our eyes were bigger would the object be seen as bigger?

The image on the retina would be bigger for a bigger eye, for an object at the same distance. But because the object is so far away compared to the diameter of the eye that wouldn't much affect the angle between rays from the two ends of the object that I mentioned in my first reply. And then there's the difficult question of how that retinal image is transformed into a perception of the image by the brain. We learn to judge distances and sizes by experience of seeing. If we had bigger eyes to start with, our brains would no doubt still learn to judge distances and sizes in a similar way.

 

[LaurieAG]

Images aren't projected through space. An image (technical point for the informed: I'm talking real images, not virtual) is only formed where you have light rays converging on a "screen" of some kind. In space, there are only the light rays (or waves).

Thats a good point James R as each observation made at discrete points between a rotating source and the observer will have a different set of light rays converging at each discrete point (but there would still be a curved light path between a rotating source and observer in Euclidian space, unless you were too close (local) and that natural curve (actually still in Euclidian space considering the optical model and Depth Of Field) appeared like a straight line in your perception).

If the source was stationary you would expect that the images would be comprised of different parts of the same light rays travelling straight through the observation points from the source. This stationary source is interesting (but not realistic) when you consider that the glancing incident structure of X-ray lensing actually excludes anything coming directly towards the observation point (optical measurements don't).

Magical Realist, here's the next Avatar in the series.

(2) I call this one FernShell and it is just a little bit more twisted and off center than the first (1)

 

[James R]

LaurieAG:

Who mentioned rotating sources, optical models, x-rays or Avatars?

What are you talking about?

Edit: I read back over the thread. I still can't work out what you're talking about, though.

 

[LaurieAG]

Hi James R, do you know of any celestial objects in our observable universe that are not rotating (around something)?

If you look here you will see a HST Optics PDF. http://www.pgccphy.net/ref/

Hubble’s primary mirror has a diameter of D = 2.4 meters (94.5 inches), and has a focal length of f = 57.6 meters. Another parameter often used to characterize astronomical telescopes is the so-called f-number, which is defined to be the ratio of the focal length to the aperture diameter: f-number = f
...
For Hubble, the primary mirror has an f-number of f/24.

The Depth Of Field calcs are here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field for moderate to large distances.

For a given image format, depth of field is determined by three factors: the focal length of the lens, the f-number of the lens opening (the aperture), and the camera-to-subject distance.

This is all Euclidian geometry.

 

[LaurieAG]

(3) I call this one Perfect Orb

The only differences between (1), (2) and (3) were minor changes in the 3 angles between the camera and the screen. In real time it looks 3D and you can totally block the path of light between camera and screen, or for that matter turn off the PC, and when you unblock the path or turn the PC back on and open the camera s/w, again you will see exactly the same image come back.

The interesting thing is that you can create other persistent stable states directly off (3) by introducing interference where all but one state will automatically revert back to (3) once the interference is removed. I will put that one on next.

James R and Magical Realist, do you see how a simple model with 3 angles and one distance relate to persistent spatial illusions?

 

[James R]

Hi James R, do you know of any celestial objects in our observable universe that are not rotating (around something)?

Yes. How is that relevant to distant objects appearing smaller? That's the topic, remember.

And how are Hubbble telescope depth of field calculations relevant to the topic?

James R and Magical Realist, do you see how a simple model with 3 angles and one distance relate to persistent spatial illusions?

Not from what you've written.

Hey! Here's an idea. Why don't you start a new thread on your geometrical constructions for people who are interested, and leave this one for discussion of the topic in the opening post?

 

[LaurieAG]

Yes. How is that relevant to distant objects appearing smaller? That's the topic, remember.

Like a fractal tree James R?

(4) same as (1) and (2) and (3) + 2 mirrors at right angles.

 

[LaurieAG]

(5) Nanotube (2) + 1 mirror.

 

[James R]

LaurieAG:

You're not making any sense.

 

[LaurieAG]

Hi James R, I know you work very hard on this site and I respect your considerable efforts so please don't take this the wrong way.

Around 21 years ago I wrote a self titled undergraduate paper in Communications Studies called 'When does a message become noise? When does noise become a message?'

I was a bit pissed off because I was automatically transferred when education institutions were merged, I was only given 0.6 of a credit for this subject after the transfer, so I had to repeat the subject (to get the mandatory 1.0) and missed out on a sub major in mathematical modelling for my Applied Science degree as a result. The lecturer wrote that it was good to see someone who was prepared to dive to the depths rather than skate along the surface like the majority.

Basically the answer is, It depends on the communications context.

To get both sides of your brain firing you can play a little party drinking game. Years ago we would call it the Buffalo's and the Buffalo hunters. Basically you would have to drink your beer or whatever with the opposite hand that you normally use to drink with. If a Buffalo hunter spotted you drinking with your normal hand they could call you out and, if you did forget, you would have to scull your drink in one hit, if you were in fact drinking out of your opposite hand then the person who challenged you would have to scull their own drink in one go. Basically if you could not reverse your innate habits you would get drunk very quickly while everybody who could do so would have a great time.

While I don't recommend playing these types of games, or drinking much alcohol for that matter, boys will be boys and drinking alcohol is a part of growing up in western society so you may as well benefit from the follies of youth by learning self control and balanced thinking why you do it.

(6) This avatar/persistent spatial illusion is called Black Hole which is (3) plus put your finger on the screen and pull it back within 1.7 seconds. It takes quite a bit to get this one right but the end result (the avatar has not expanded yet, I call the end product a shadow trap) is a torus or pure Einstein ring. The inside ring has waves running around it while there are also waves running around the outside in the opposite direction. This will remain in a stable state as long as the path between the screen and the camera CCD is not disturbed. If this path is disturbed the torus just reverts back to (3) the perfect orb state.

All of the avatars I have used, apart from the XPI one, were all created with the same feedback loop and only minor changes to the angles between the CCD and the screen and the introduction of mirrors or objects within the loop were used to creat them all. This is probably the closest measurable representation of a binary quantum state on a device that accurately models a true Poincare section.

 

[wellwisher]

The right side of the brain processes data in a 3-D or integral way, while the left side of the brain does so in a differential way. These sides are connected via the corpus colossi which allows information shuttle. For example, if we went to a foreign country and we see a group of people, the right side of the brain sees feature commonality, while the left side of the brain see features differences. The net effect is we are aware we are in France, but we also notice the people near us in detail.

Science investigation is primarily left brain while science invention is often right brain. Science left brain looks for minute details, while putting together all these details into a new order or theory needs right brain integration. It is no different that going to a country of data and see what this all has in common.

If you are looking at a spatial illusion, in light of both sides of the brain, the right brain will help integrate the trick, while left brain will attempt to notice something differential that helps one to see through it. If you don't see the differential, it will intuitively appear 3-D.

We are normally fully conscious of only one side of the brain at a time. The other side of the brain is based on unconscious perception or intuition. Most people are left brained due to being right handed and due to differential education; learn the facts. Integration often comes to most people as an unconscious hunch; eureka! If you train yourself to use both sides of the brain, equally, one side is still unconscious at any given time. The trick is to switch back and forth to compare observations from both angles.

A spatial illusion is not limited to just a visual sensory effect. One can also make special illusions for the mind's eye, or for internal visualization of ideas. As an example, a philosophy might seem to be 3-D (appears to apply to all) but it is just an illusion of 3-D, since it does not work for all. It falls short of 3-D if looked critically or with the differential brain.

For example, each side of politics can see the differential short comings in the oppositions POV, but not in their own philosophy. Both sides will point out the flaws in other side, i.e., spatial illusion. The trick for seeing through both political spatial illusions, is to learn the differential preached from both sides.

But since we are educated to be left brained and the integration is from the unconscious side of the brain, this is not easy to do. One needs to use the left brain to examine your own right brain. You need to go inside your mind to develop this skill. The personality firmware are 3-D. They step down from the core to right brain to left brain. We may have the urge to eat, which is very general and integral, Then it differentiates into a tuna melt.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Thanks for that post, wellwisher. I can relate.

What role does being ambidextrous play in it all? I ask, because I am ambidextrous and I kind of think like your post.

 

[LaurieAG]

http://scienceforums.com/topic/27196-2012-da14-nasajpl-teleconference-february-7/

Post # 6 has the corrected plot for the trajectory of 2012 DA14 and the reasoning.

I had to reverse the side elevation, at least it was symetrical, and plot each against each other as the NASA/JPL images and simulation were in opposition.

In the movie The Dish, the Australian guy corrected NASA's figures because he said they plotted trajectories for the southern hemisphere from the perspective of the northern hemisphere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dish_(movie)

 

[LaurieAG]

For example, each side of politics can see the differential short comings in the oppositions POV, but not in their own philosophy. Both sides will point out the flaws in other side, i.e., spatial illusion. The trick for seeing through both political spatial illusions, is to learn the differential preached from both sides.

But since we are educated to be left brained and the integration is from the unconscious side of the brain, this is not easy to do. One needs to use the left brain to examine your own right brain. You need to go inside your mind to develop this skill. The personality firmware are 3-D. They step down from the core to right brain to left brain. We may have the urge to eat, which is very general and integral, Then it differentiates into a tuna melt.

Hi wellwisher, well put.

40 years ago I was sick for two weeks at high school and I missed out on the first 2 weeks of calculus, I was stressed and really worried until it just clicked in my brain and I found that I could do quite complex multi step calculus in my head. A good mate who ended up being a doctor/specialist radiologist (one of the best in Australia) would sit next to me and say 'what did you do there' because i would only write down every second line. The teacher would not give any marks for an incorrect answer without full steps so I soon worked out what I had to do to get full marks while only writing every second step down. Basically, when you reached the last 3 steps (differentials/integrals) you had to do each step individually or you could overshoot/undershoot.

At university around 35 years ago I walked into a tutorial on calculus of imaginary units, did each of the 3 questions in 20 seconds and spent 40 seconds rechecking each one. I went up to the tutor after 3 minutes and said, is this all there is?, he said yes so I showed my mates how to do the problems in 2 minutes and walked out of the tutorial. I gave up studying for my degree there and then because I realised that you could do almost anything with calculus (modified or otherwise) and it was no fun because it was not a challenge anymore. 20 years ago I finished my degree and still walked out of technical calculus and discrete maths exams half way through with 100% results.

BTW, if you do play the drinking game please look after your mates.

(7) Startled Trojan is just (3) with your finger placed on the screen beside the Perfect Orb.

 

[LaurieAG]

(8) Flare is created with one mirror.