Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Back to your mentions of how image is flipped when entering the eye, and then flipped back;

How is the image flipped so perfectly, is it mainly due to the curve of the eye, (I am familiar with how images can flip in for say, a spoon, similar concept?)

And is there much leeway as to the curve of the curve, to get a perfect flip?

Is there understanding as to why it is like this, why flip at all? Could it be to capture the information from different angles, and then check it? Could it be sent to different places?

Do all animals have the eye image flip?

Is the mind upside down? Could the image be on the ceiling of mind, or membrane? Is the mind purely 2d?

The lens, eye, and mind work anything like a camera with negative, exposure?

a reply to: ImaFungi

A convex lens, like the lens in the animal eye, will produce a reversed "upside down and left to right" image at the plane where the image is in sharp focus. The lens, like the common magnifying lens, does all the flipping. The curve of the eyeball has nothing to do with the flip.

The retina in the eye is relatively close to the lens. To keep most of the image in focus, the spherical shape helps. If the retina were long away, like the screen of a movie projector, the difference of the distance from the edge and the distance from the centre of the screen is relatively minor, and we can manage with a flat screen. In a small camera, the image-sensitive surface needs to be curved to retain most of the image in focus.

The information about the light striking the retina is brought via the optic nerves in to the appropriate parts of the brain. The neural networks in the brain turn the picture into something comprehensible, and ensure that we perceive the world to be right side up.

By the way, the animal eye is rather dismally poor as an optical instrument. The image processing in the brain corrects away most of the defects most of the time.

a reply to: Pirvonen

Aren't nerves just the roots of the brain? lol

Seriously, where does perception/conception begin and end? Where does the brain begin and end? If I get a vote, I'm voting for all the ways that the body communicates - any means of information processing - any mode of communication, should be a part of the psyche. Our memories of ourselves, for example: if a memory is of ourselves while we were awake, we see our entire body in our memory, in 3rd person perspective, but if a memory is of ourselves while we were asleep (a memory of a dream) we only see ourselves in first person perspective. Thus, any awaken part is apart of the brain/mind/psyche. I just had a thought... I wonder if paraplegics' waking memories are in first person or third person?

Anyways, yeah... roots. I and my pinky toe are one.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
The lens, eye, and mind work anything like a camera with negative, exposure?

Yes.

a reply to: Pirvonen
Good answer. In the "picture worth a thousand words" vein, here's the illustration showing how eyes with lenses and cameras work:

Inverted Images

Not all animal eyes work this way, but many do including human eyes. Cameras record the images upside down except on a flat imager, it's not curved like the retina.

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: Pirvonen

Aren't nerves just the roots of the brain? lol

Seriously, where does perception/conception begin and end? Where does the brain begin and end?

Mike the Headless Chicken lived for 18 months without a head which caused me to ask similar questions. I would have liked Mike's insights on what it's like to live without a head, but he wouldn't have been able to communicate with me even when he had a head and even less so without one.

Our research into consciousness is in its infancy so more is unknown than is known. One interesting research project at Princeton is experimentally testing the attention model described at this link:

The Attention Schema Theory - A neuro-cognitive theory of what consciousness is and how it evolved

There is no adaptive reason for a brain to know that it has electrochemical signals passing through neurons, or that the signals compete in a complex manner that results in some signals becoming enhanced, or that the enhanced signals have more influence over the parts of the brain involved in decision-making, movement, and memory. Brains don’t need that detailed or accurate information about themselves in order to function. Instead, the simplified model of attention attributes to the self an experience of X -- the property of being conscious of something. In this theory, a brain attributes to itself, "I am aware of X, in the sense of mentally possessing X and being able to react to X," because that attribution is a good, if simplified, model of the much more complex process of paying attention to X.

The argument that we don't intuitively understand how our brain works because we never had a need to know makes sense, and the same argument can be used for why quantum mechanics seems non-intuitive...as we've never had any evolutionary need to comprehend things which are often explored in quantum mechanics experiments. This is something which I think imafungi needs to appreciate, when attempting to apply logic from a brain that didn't evolve to comprehend quantum mechanics.

The attention schema theory is entirely mechanistic and therefore scientifically testable. In this theory, awareness is not a fuzzy philosophical flourish, but a key part of the brain's machinery for processing data. My lab is currently focused on testing predictions of the theory.

While consciousness is a mystery, it's a mystery that some people are attempting to solve, by researching scientifically testable ideas.

It will be interesting to see where the research leads.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I really can't fault Imafungi - I don't think any of us can truly escape that mentality. Do you?

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Einstein's greatest equation

Reality is not physical - its forces only behave as such, right?

What do you make of the perceivable reality, in its behavior, coinciding with a mind that wants to perceive physical things? Does physicality / location not actually occur when we measure forces as such?

Maybe that is the issue with spooky action (entanglement), superposition, quantum tunneling, wave-particle duality, uncertainty, etc.? The measurements seek to measure non-physical behavior and so non-physical behavior is what they get. No?

What I'm referring to is basically the middle ground between the anthropic principle and the fine-tuned universe theory - where neither notion recognizes that we ourselves are forces which affect changes in other forces.

That is, I don't think it is as simple as we perceive reality as physical because its forces behave that way, nor is that reality is wholly physical, but it is instead, something in between. How to describe that thing in between, I do not know, but I don't think we're incapable simply because 'we haven't had an evolutionary need to' as yet. What is need anyway? Is that a proven theory? We reproduce awareness because we became aware of death? Maybe we reproduce awareness, not because we need to, but because we love awareness?

A fine-tune for the anthropics.

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I really can't fault Imafungi - I don't think any of us can truly escape that mentality. Do you?

I don't claim my brain is any more evolved so of course I struggle with comprehension like every other scientist who has studied quantum mechanics. But at some point, shouldn't we just acknowledge this limitation of our brains and go where the evidence leads us?

What do you make of the perceivable reality, in its behavior, coinciding with a mind that wants to perceive physical things? Does physicality / location not actually occur when we measure forces as such?

Maybe that is the issue with spooky action (entanglement), superposition, quantum tunneling, wave-particle duality, uncertainty, etc.? The measurements seek to measure non-physical behavior and so non-physical behavior is what they get. No?

Entanglement is physically measurable and repeatable using our technology so don't know how to differentiate between "physical" and "non-physical" whatever that means. Is "non-physical" some kind of code word for "magic?" or if not I don't know what that means.

That is, I don't think it is as simple as we perceive reality as physical because its forces behave that way, nor is that reality is wholly physical, but it is instead, something in between. How to describe that thing in between, I do not know, but I don't think we're incapable simply because 'we haven't had an evolutionary need to' as yet. What is need anyway? Is that a proven theory? We reproduce awareness because we became aware of death? Maybe we reproduce awareness, not because we need to, but because we love awareness?

I said I didn't find Quantum Darwinism credible, but modern evolution theory (perhaps somewhat updated since Darwin but with similarities) is understood in general terms to be scientific fact, though there are competing theories which differ on details of the evolutionary process. The "need" for genes according to evolutionary theory is to replicate, because if they don't, then they don't get passed on to future generations. Of course nature has many solutions to this challenge, like worker bees "need" is to protect the queen so the queen can pass along her genes. That's the way bee societies have evolved, so the expression can mean different things in different evolutionary contexts, with the common theme that the genes must get passed along or go extinct...those are the two basic options. Since most species that have ever lived on planet Earth are now extinct, I guess it's fair to say this "need" to not become extinct and keep replicating has met with major challenges over the eons.

If we don't find a way to populate other planets or star systems we too will become extinct, certainly when all the water in the oceans boils away in maybe a billion years, but perhaps far sooner than that if we meet with serious natural catastrophe such as the Earth has experienced many times before.

a reply to: ImaFungi

What's even more wonderful, is that if you have a brain that's complex enough, you can correct for flip in any axis.

For example, if you wear dove prisms for long enough, your brain will eventually figure it out and flip it back. It takes quite a while, though.

a reply to: Bedlam

For example, if you wear dove prisms for long enough, your brain will eventually figure it out and flip it back.

Will light shine from your eyes too?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Bedlam

For example, if you wear dove prisms for long enough, your brain will eventually figure it out and flip it back.

Will light shine from your eyes too?

Only if you're carrying a Goa'uld.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Why do you have to be a glass is half death kind of person? If the forces which caused those genes to emerge can reemerge then those genes can reemerge.

Convergent evolution.

originally posted by: greenreflections


if I can use Fourier transform to get what I need from position value then whats the big problem of knowing both? And why to know both is that important?

photon can exist in point like and wave form like format. Photon has all characteristics of the wave because it is same quanta. It went from being everywhere at the moment of emission to an instance when absorbed. Wave collapses (contracts) to a single event. it returned back to what it was before emission. So what?

You can do a Fourier transform but there is an issue of non-commuteability so if a function M is the Fourier transform of a function P, then the sharper P is, the less-sharp is M.

But you can measure them somewhat that way. The Uncertainty principle doesn't forbid that, it forbids making an accurate prediction about a system.
If you fire a photon through a large slit and then have a detector screen set up it will act like a classical particle but once you make the slit smaller than the photon wave function the area on the detector screen that shows impacts will get larger, more spread out.
So you don't know where the photon will pass through a large slit or if the slit is small then you won't know where it will impact the screen.

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Why do you have to be a glass is half death kind of person? If the forces which caused those genes to emerge can reemerge then those genes can reemerge.

Convergent evolution.

Convergent evolution implies that form or function are the same, but not the genes, which are different.

The extinction of T-Rex is a glass half full scenario for us. We probably wouldn't be here if T-Rex and his cousins were still around.

Potential human extinction is only "glass is half death" as you put it if we sit here and accept that fate while refusing to spend money on space exploration/colonization. The glass half full part is that we are likely the first species on Earth that may have the ability to prevent our own extinction by not being a single-planet species that can be destroyed by a disaster on a single planet in the medium term, and that doesn't rely on a single star system in the long term.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Convergent evolution implies that form or function are the same, but not the genes, which are different.

I have never much thought about that, but to be clear, maybe you know, what you mean by form - genes;


form like; eyes, jointed fingers, the concept of tendons, hair/hair color;

These are 'forms' or concepts that are potentially utilized by many different species of animals; are you saying the genes are vastly different for forms? Like there are no similarity between the genes responsible for hand construction in all animals with hands? Or it is almost meaningless to compare because the nature of genes are very close to binary? Which brings up another question; the binary of our computers is quite useless without hardware and code that make simple 1 and 0 mean and make and do something; so genes are like 1 2 3 4 3 4 2 3 1 4 3 1 2 3 4 3 1 2 ;

What is the analogous code, software, that makes the binary mean something? Or are there just many layers of relatively soft and relatively hard ware, that interacts both ways, and does the near binary, genes, create the code, or the code reading mechanism, yada.

Also back to the image eye flip;
Is it known if and how the mind is pixelated, what its resolution might be, interior? Is it relatively true that any image capturing (and controlling, sorting, organizing, storing) device must utilize in some sense the concept of pixillation, the brain/mind ought be no different?

originally posted by: ImaFungi
I have never much thought about that, but to be clear, maybe you know, what you mean by form - genes;

form like; eyes, jointed fingers, the concept of tendons, hair/hair color;

These are 'forms' or concepts that are potentially utilized by many different species of animals; are you saying the genes are vastly different for forms?

It depends on how close the genetic relationship is between the species you're comparing. I think if you compare your hands to hands of other primates you'll find remarkable similarities in form, function and genes, because we are genetically related to other primates.

Convergent evolution says that the species don't have to be genetically related to have similar form/function, so the function of wings that evolved for birds, bats and insects is similar, but the wings themselves are quite different and so are the genes.

What is the analogous code, software, that makes the binary mean something? Or are there just many layers of relatively soft and relatively hard ware, that interacts both ways, and does the near binary, genes, create the code, or the code reading mechanism, yada.

Good question for the "Ask any question about genetics" thread. There are some experts in genetics on ATS. I'm not one of them; though I do have some expertise in computers so I can tell you a lot more about binary computers than I can about biology, which is apparently not binary (see the article below).

Also back to the image eye flip;
Is it known if and how the mind is pixelated, what its resolution might be, interior? Is it relatively true that any image capturing (and controlling, sorting, organizing, storing) device must utilize in some sense the concept of pixillation, the brain/mind ought be no different?

Again this isn't quite physics, but from what I know much more is known about the resolution of the eye than resolution of the mind. The way the brain sorts and stores information is quite different from binary devices. Here are some examples of the differences:

10 Important Differences Between Brains and Computers

Difference # 1: Brains are analogue; computers are digital
It’s easy to think that neurons are essentially binary, given that they fire an action potential if they reach a certain threshold, and otherwise do not fire. This superficial similarity to digital “1’s and 0’s” belies a wide variety of continuous and non-linear processes that directly influence neuronal processing.

For example, one of the primary mechanisms of information transmission appears to be the rate at which neurons fire – an essentially continuous variable...

I think it also depends on whose brain you're talking about. Most people can't do this, including me, at least I couldn't make a drawing this accurate from memory after a 20 minute helicopter ride:

Autistic artist Stephen Wiltshire draws spellbinding 18ft picture of New York from memory... after a 20-minute helicopter ride over city

a reply to: Arbitrageur

One of the reasons I personally have been so persistently interested, philosophically, physically, truthfully, in light, is because I am also interested in the mind, science of consciousness, A.I, and am curious how light might play its role in the mind, visual abilities of brain, consciousness.

a reply to: ImaFungi
Consciousness is an interesting topic, but I don't know what you mean by "how light might play its role in the mind", as I don't think it does, directly. A related topic that interests me is how easily our minds are fooled with optical illusions. I think evolution left us with a mind that provides for some good survival skills, but it has plenty of flaws in the way things are perceived where there was probably no evolutionary pressure for those flows to be corrected so we still have them.

It's not really a problem until people mistakenly think that their eyes and brain record things like a video camera and that their brain stores information like a hard drive, when neither is the case and both human systems have far more flaws than comparable video cameras and memory chips.

I think AI is how we are going to have to explore space since humans are so fragile.

a reply to: joelr

If you fire a photon through a large slit and then have a detector screen set up it will act like a classical particle but once you make the slit smaller than the photon wave function the area on the detector screen that shows impacts will get larger, more spread out.

thank you, I didn't know we can manufacture a slit that is smaller than photon wave function and still call it a slit))
It would be no slit at all. Energy quanta will be absorbed or excite first atom it meets, deflected or what ever but will not get through. Am I right with this?

I have more comments unrelated to what you replied. That's may be for every one who is reading this post.

Photon. Wave function of photon nothing more than spherical like energy propagation with the logical point in the center from which sphere 'walls' are receding, me thinks. That sphere is single quanta deep. In this' respect it has beginning and the end 'deep wise (length).
If I to compress that sphere to a point, I will get photon. But this sort of compression only occurs at the moment of absorption. That's how I understand photon so far.


]

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thank you.

I will look up more on quantum Darwinism. Cool stuff but might be more of fun idea than actual course of events.

originally posted by: greenreflections
Photon. Wave function of photon nothing more than spherical like energy propagation, me thinks.

So how does your sphere fit in with this yellow cone which shows where the photons are going in the synchrotron?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: ImaFungi
If you include energy and momentum in that term then both are conserved when the electron emits a photon. In the synchrotron radiation example the electron had that energy and momentum before the photon was created, then when it encountered the magnetic field, that's what caused that energy and momentum to be transferred to a photon. I picked this example because it should be easy to see the momentum correlation:

Synchrotron radiation

Radiation cone of photons generated by an electron package is shown in yellow

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: greenreflections
Photon. Wave function of photon nothing more than spherical like energy propagation, me thinks.

So how does your sphere fit in with this yellow cone which shows where the photons are going in the synchrotron?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: ImaFungi
If you include energy and momentum in that term then both are conserved when the electron emits a photon. In the synchrotron radiation example the electron had that energy and momentum before the photon was created, then when it encountered the magnetic field, that's what caused that energy and momentum to be transferred to a photon. I picked this example because it should be easy to see the momentum correlation:

Synchrotron radiation

Radiation cone of photons generated by an electron package is shown in yellow

The shell could be imagined as esotropic radiator EM pulse.

We can construct a thought experiment that will explain yellow beam of light. If I enclose esotropic radiator into solid shell leaving just one slit out of it, you will see yellow beam that is a 'segment' of the sphere that's left confined to the enclosure shell. Eventually all light will escape an enclosure through the slit and that will produce a directional beam which will also become more and more spread as it propagates. I mean, really, why not?