• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Explain THIS one!

Iamme said:
Remember in an earlier post I had also mentioned that I have witnessed this same effect with two different colors on a food label or that enameled magazine paper? It's coming to me more now. The effect occurs when either a red print is over a blue backround, or vice-versa. The one color will appear raised off the page, as if in 3-d!

I'd imagine that this too is caused by some speed of light differential between the blue light and the red light.

I've noticed this effect, too. I mostly notice it on my computer screen and on bright red neon signs. The red part seems to "float" above the surrounding colors or shapes. It's very striking, but it goes away when I take off my glasses. I'm nearsighted, btw.

edited for spelling. One little allergy pill and my typing goes right over the edge.
 
wayrad said:
lamme,

I am able to see the effect you mention using several microscope slides stacked together, but only using fairly smooth paper and at a foot or so distance. If I use paper with an obvious texture, like a paper towel, or if I get extremely close to it so that I can see surface detail, the paper as well as the writing looks raised.
Hmmm....I think this is evidence to support my hypothesis that the effect is an optical illusion.

BillyJoe
 
BillyJoe said:
Hmmm....I think this is evidence to support my hypothesis that the effect is an optical illusion.

BillyJoe
I tend to agree. As long as I'm looking as close to straight down as possible, and there's nothing about the paper itself that I can really focus on to see the illusion, I think I just take my cue about its distance from the surrounding paper (outside the glass). The writing, on the other hand, would present a distinct image to each eye, so the brain tries to match the images up.
 
wayrad and BillyJoe---But precisely what IS an optical 'illusion'. It is that your eyes are being fooled. But, they are being fooled in some scientificly explained way. I gave a reason as to why I thought this illusion could occur. What I'm NOT sure about however, is what speed of light reflecting off an object in your eye, causes your eye to perceive the image as being closer to your eye. And why this only occurs when you are nearsighted with your glasses on.There has got to be a l;egitimate explanation for this.
 
Iamme said:
wayrad and BillyJoe---But precisely what IS an optical 'illusion'. It is that your eyes are being fooled. But, they are being fooled in some scientificly explained way. I gave a reason as to why I thought this illusion could occur. What I'm NOT sure about however, is what speed of light reflecting off an object in your eye, causes your eye to perceive the image as being closer to your eye. And why this only occurs when you are nearsighted with your glasses on.There has got to be a l;egitimate explanation for this.

There are several aspects to this. The first is refraction, the bending of light when it passes from one transparent medium to another. There's a nice treatment of this at
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/refrn/refrntoc.html
Seems to involve the fact that different media slow down the light to a different extent (actually, this "slowing down" bit is kind of misleading, since what I've read leads me to think that the light energy is being absorbed and reemitted by atoms in the medium, but travels at its usual rate through the interatomic voids. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.). Anyway, one way to look at it is that when a light wave hits the boundary between two media at an angle, the part that hits first speeds up or slows down the soonest, causing the light ray to bend. So the light rays that enter your eye after being reflected off an object under glass are actually bent at the point where they leave the glass and emerge into the air.

You are equipped to determine what vector light is entering your eyes on (it has to go through the pupil and hit some place on the retina, so from that you decide what direction it comes from). Quite reasonably, your brain "sees" the image along that vector. It has no way of directly sensing any bends the light took before it reached your eye! That is why an object seen at an angle through glass seems to be moved to one side.

OK, why does the object seem closer when you look at it head-on through glass? Well, you are not looking at it straight, but at two different angles, one for each eye. Under normal circumstances, an imaginary line drawn through the reflected light ray entering your left eye and one drawn through the ray entering your right eye would intersect at the place where the object is. But if your left eye sees an image that is shifted rightwards, and your right eye thinks it's shifted leftwards, those imaginary lines intersect at a point much closer to you than would otherwise be the case. Hence the illusion.

I suspect there may be a lot of interpersonal differences in how easily people see this and under what circumstances, depending on things like nearsightedness, farsightedness, whether one eye is better than the other, glasses prescriptions, degree of depth perception, etc.

I think that the reason that smooth paper doesn't show the effect well has to do with the fact that it's rather featureless - it looks pretty much the same whether your eyes are focused or not, so it's hard to get an idea of its distance, except by reference to external objects.

(edited for clarity)
 
wayrad---...and other posters. There seems to be enough interest here by some of you that I propose that YOU guys go out and get some window glass. Get someone to cut you up a bunch of small pieces, and start stacking them, and make observations yourself. maybe by actually seeing it, moving your head, closing each eye...all that stuff...something will come to mind. I was going to get more glass today from my glass man, and I forgot.
 
Iamme said:
wayrad---...and other posters. There seems to be enough interest here by some of you that I propose that YOU guys go out and get some window glass. Get someone to cut you up a bunch of small pieces, and start stacking them, and make observations yourself. maybe by actually seeing it, moving your head, closing each eye...all that stuff...something will come to mind. I was going to get more glass today from my glass man, and I forgot.

Already tried it, see my post before last. Can certainly attempt to replicate whatever observation you find to be unexplained, if you describe it, but it would not be time-effective to try to guess what that observation is.
 
wayrad,

wayrad said:
I tend to agree [about it being an optical illusion]. As long as I'm looking as close to straight down as possible, and there's nothing about the paper itself that I can really focus on to see the illusion, I think I just take my cue about its distance from the surrounding paper (outside the glass). The writing, on the other hand, would present a distinct image to each eye, so the brain tries to match the images up.
Sounds like a very reasonable explanation for the presumed optical illusion.

BillyJoe.
 
Iamme said:

Thanks. As I stated, just curious. I enjoy your posts, but they can be a bit "naively provocative" at times so I was trying to correlate age/posting style, especially since you're a relatively new poster. I was WAY off, apparently. So much for "studies of one". ;)

Iamme said:
I'm not married, so I don't have a life. I like experimenting with stuff. I write companies if I feel like I have a good idea. I was experimenting with 'filler' concoctions on a piece of glass, when I noticed this effect.

I'm curious why you ask. I presume the worst.

I've been around a little bit. Seen -54 on thermometer. Seen so much snow on the ground that road plows had to tier to prepare for the next snow. Operated a dry kiln (Guages/wet/dry heat) by myself. Smoked 3 packs of cigarettes a day. (Quit cold turkey). Got a one in State competition for baritone and trumpet.Worked in !07 degrees on World's largest nuclear power plant. Never have been to a war (good draft number.) Driven 1100 miles nonstop. Been on trains, jets and helicopter. Lived through world record rain fall. Lived through hurricane (Had to board up and flee). Got in national magazine. Got in national syndicated doctors health column in paper and have written in my thoughts on things to local editorial page. Write state commissioners, congressmen, etc. Been to a live tv show. I ran a water system (albeit small one). I've met all kinds of different people from different states. Shook hands with my governor. Talked to a famous racer. Collected found fossilized mastadon bones and fossilized shark teeth. Worked on hotrod type cars. Fixed most appliances (washers, dryers, water heaters, furnaces, etc.) Lived with thousands of cockroaches (and the games in destroying them). Witnessed two nude guys chasing themselves around the beach. Hitch-hiked/picked up hitch-hikers. Had Australian bicykling around the world stay over at my house. Ate rattlesnake/killed rattlesnakes. Built unusual house (2-story a-frame... I remodified blueprints to include dormer window/more space upstairs. Formed concrete. Framed buildings. Walked while beams to be poured up 6 stories. Stretched and seamed carpet (an endless list when it comes to remodeling , electrical, and plumbing.) I can't hardly sit still and enjoy learning new stuff. Does this help some?

Umm... okay. I guess I got the "bonus plan".

:D

-TT

(P.S. Whomever reported me... well... :rolleyes: )
 
ThirdTwin said:


Thanks. As I stated, just curious. I enjoy your posts, but they can be a bit "naively provocative" at times so I was trying to correlate age/posting style, especially since you're a relatively new poster. I was WAY off, apparently. So much for "studies of one". ;)

And how old are you??


I want to get "reported", too! ;)
 
ThirdTwin---I forgot. iIve been shot at also!:eek: I was caught in the crossfire, while I lived in Sarasota, Florida in the 70's, when the police ran down a bank robber and they had a 'shootout' with tons of cops and this dude. I was on a construction site and bullets were hitting the building and even made a car tire go flat. A cop later came over, after the riddled the robber to death and had to account for where all the bullets went. I was out front, landscaping and was 'in the line of fire. Another time when I lived in Texas about 6 years later, I thought I was being shot at and I ended up running and clotheslining myself at full speed. Got up and continued running through rattlesnake infested grass.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT.....

Thanks for the explanation of refraction, BillHoyt, though it was unnecessary - I have a PhD in laser spectroscopy and still do related research. ;)

I was interested because the whole discussion vaguely rang a bell. A little looking around yielded this on chromostereopsis...

http://www.discover.com/neuroquest/chromo1.html

(it was a bit of a slow load this morning but worth the wait, I think.)

The illusion is neat, but I'm not so sure about the explanation. As I remember, the idea is that the eye tends to focus green best, and the lens has to be flexed in different directions to bring blue and red into focus. This need for flexing is the same as that required to focus at different distances, creating the illusion of depth.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT.....

Beausoleil said:
The illusion is neat, but I'm not so sure about the explanation. As I remember, the idea is that the eye tends to focus green best, and the lens has to be flexed in different directions to bring blue and red into focus. This need for flexing is the same as that required to focus at different distances, creating the illusion of depth.
Cool! This is a good example of the red-on-blue effect that was mentioned earlier. You're right, their explanatory diagram seems to make no sense. Are they saying binocular vision is needed for this particular illusion? It doesn't seem to be.

Looks like they "cheated" a bit in their placement of the red rectangle on order to enhance the illusion, but the effect is so obvious that it hardly seems necessary.
 
BTox said:


And how old are you??

Soon to be 35 (holy crap!), definitely WAY too old to be a medical student, and completely resistant to acting my age (at least outside of the hospital). ;)


BTox said:
I want to get "reported", too! ;)

Just use a few bad words. Sheriff Bidlack will come-a-knockin' in no time flat!

:D

-TT
 
I went and got more glass today from the glass cutter. It is even THICKER glass. I now have 6 pieces probably thicker than an inch. I had the glass cutter take a look at print through the stacked glass. Then I made stairs out of them, over the print and for each step up of glass, so goes the print. He said, "Huh!". I just chuckled because he probably thinks I'm nuts.:D

As far as I can tell, even with well over an inch of glass, there is no refractive (sidewards)shift in the letters. They just look like they are 'inside' the glass. It looks like the letters are halfway into the glass thickness, and there is no magnification of letters or side-shift. I'll fiddle around with these tomorrow, some.
 
Iamme said:
I went and got more glass today from the glass cutter. It is even THICKER glass. I now have 6 pieces probably thicker than an inch. I had the glass cutter take a look at print through the stacked glass. Then I made stairs out of them, over the print and for each step up of glass, so goes the print. He said, "Huh!". I just chuckled because he probably thinks I'm nuts.:D

As far as I can tell, even with well over an inch of glass, there is no refractive (sidewards)shift in the letters. They just look like they are 'inside' the glass. It looks like the letters are halfway into the glass thickness, and there is no magnification of letters or side-shift. I'll fiddle around with these tomorrow, some.
The shift is what causes the text to appear to be raised. Look at a line of text from an angle, below the baseline of text. Be sure an edge of the glass is perpendicular to the baseline of the text letters. The letters you see through the glass are shifted away from you. Your eyes/brain interprets this to mean the letters are raised.

Cheers,
 
ThirdTwin said:


Soon to be 35 (holy crap!), definitely WAY too old to be a medical student, and completely resistant to acting my age (at least outside of the hospital). ;)


-TT

Dang, I was off, too. I knew you were a 3rd year med student so just assumed you were ~ 25. oops!

PS I'm 45. think I could get through it??
 
BTox said:
I knew you were a 3rd year med student so just assumed you were ~ 25. oops!
The average third year medical student is 21 years of age

BTox said:
PS I'm 45. think I could get through it??
You will graduate at 51 and after the obligatory intern years you will be 53. Do you really want to?
 
BTox said:
PS I'm 45. think I could get through it??

Well, depends on how much you want to be in debt. You'll have to wait at least another year before you can start, assuming you've done all of the pre-med requirements (1 year of biology, 1 year of general chemistry, 1 year of organic chemistry, 1 year of physics [with all the labs for each], 1 year of college level calculus, and 1 year of college level english) and you have a good score on the MCAT. (Again, I'm assuming you're talking about going to a U.S. allopathic or osteopathic school. I'm not aware of the requirements for other countries.)

Originally posted by BillyJoe
The average third year medical student is 21 years of age

The average third-year medical student, at least in the U.S., is actually between 26-28.

Source: http://www.aamc.org/

Originally posted by BillyJoe
You will graduate at 51 and after the obligatory intern years you will be 53. Do you really want to?

Actually, the minimum length of a residency is three-years - even Family Practice - in order to be board-eligible in whatever field you intend to practice.

Many sub-specialty programs (e.g., Cardiology, Hematology/Oncology, Nephrology, Endocrinology, etc.) are an additional 2 1/2 - 3 years of "fellowship" training following an Internal Medicine (3 year) residency. So, if that's your calling, you're looking at an additional 5 1/2-6 years of training AFTER four years of medical school. I'll be 40 before I'm out on my own. You don't make squat during residency and fellowship... just enough to get by. And, you don't have a life either.

BTox, you're 45 now and, if you could start today, you'll be 52 before you're practicing on your own and making any money (which will be not that much depending on what field you go into). It's a tough profession - that I'm learning more and more everyday, and it gets harder as you get older. But, we have a few students in my program that are older than I. It's all up to you, if you want to make the life-changing (the only way to describe it) investment of time, money, blood, sweat, and tears. If you do, go full guns and jump in with both feet. That's the only way you can do it. But, it is a lifelong commitment to learning and putting others needs somewhat ahead of your own. It's a lifestyle, not an occupation. That's what many "youngsters" don't realize when they choose to pursue medicine as a career.

-TT
 
ThirdTwin---My sister decided to go from retail, into nursing, and became an RN at 37.

O.K., I have more info on the glass. I stacked the 6 pieces of glass this morning = 1 1/8 inches. The illusion of raised appears to be 7/16 in heigth off the paper.

There is no distortion.

Refraction is only 1/16 inch (through all that thickness of glass!) out at the edges of the 4 inch square stack.

If you raise the stack straight off the table (let's say up one foot...close to your eye), the raised illusionary effect is still off the table by 7/16. It is not 'in' the glass. So, no matter if the glass is on the table, or raised off the table, the letters, writing, or whatever, appears higher than the paper by 7/16.

This holds true whether or not you have nearsighted glasses on.

If you have a straight line drawn on the paper and you stagger each piece of glass, over the line, like you are making stairs...the line 'curves' up in the air, off the paper. (neat visual)

If you take the whole pile of stacked glass and rock it from side to side (or front and back), then you definitely observe a lot of refraction.

But what's odd to me, is that when this tall stack of glass is laying flat on the print, the refraction of the letters is about only 1/16 inch when you look through the glass near the edges (which would be about 2 inches out from straight down.) But the illusionary image of letters is higher than this, at about 7/16 inch.

Near where I live is one of the world's tallest towers. It is 2000 feet tall. (the Sears tower is ONLY about 1450, to give you an idea). If you stand right under the tower, the tower looks like it might be only 100 feet tall. As you back away, the tower appears taller and taller and taller. Till you finally say, "No WAY would they get ME up there to change those light bulbs!!!":D There is some effect where distance becomes compressed when you are right at the base of a tower. I think the same effect is going on looking through the glass.

If instead of laying the glass on the table...suppose you held it up, with the paper ontop of the glass, and you looked at it from below, you would get the same affect of compression, as mentioned above.

Try THIS once: Take a piece of paper. Draw 2 heavy dots on it. Put one dot real near the edge of the paper, and another dot about 1 1/2 inches inward from it. Now hold it level with your eye. You can cock the paper so that the 2 dots appear to touch. Weird. Now listen to my way of saying this, to make it sound really weird.: If you have the paper on the table directly below your eyes. each dot is the same distance from your eye...and that is when you perceive the 1 1/2 inch distance. Yet...when you hold the paper level with your eye...when the farthest dot truly IS 1 1/2 inches farther from your eye than the leading edge dot...then you don't see them as 1 1/2 inches apart! Weird, eh? Try to explain this affect of why distance becomes bunched up.
 

Back
Top Bottom