Visual Reorientation Illusions (VRIs)

[Hugh]

After holding a hand-held mirror up to a wall mirror, it produced an interesting effect, but it wasn't something i myself could experience from my own vantage point. Which image are you suggesting to look into when holding a mirror perpendicular to the wall mirror?

Hi t100 and thanks for your interest.

The effect with the mirrors is much better if you're in a larger room, because you can see the rotated space more fully in the double reflection.

As you hold the hand held mirror up to the wall mirror perpendicularly (at a 90 degree right angle or T), look into the intersection of the two mirrors.

Look at yourself at the intersection of the mirrors.

Turn the hand held mirror so that it is exactly perpendicular and you see the two reflected halves of your face come together as a full, normal face.

Interestingly enough, this double reflection is how you actually appear to other people, and how you look in a normal photograph.

Okay, now behind that full double reflected face you'll see the room you are in doubly reflected, and turned around 180 degrees.

You'll notice that any writing that appears on a wall for example appears as it normally does in the room you are in.

See that space as an accessible space, and stare at yourself and into the room you want to "go in to".

As I've said, you don't actually go into another room when you see a VRI flip, but it appears like that, because when it happens, you are now looking at yourself from the other direction!

From what appears to be the other face in the mirror! Which is you of course lol.

It's really cool and fun to do.

With practice, you can go back and forth between the two views and look around at the "new viewpoint room" you're in lol.

The 180 VRI is the easiest to do.

Let me know how it works out t100.

[Hugh]

Hmmm, Triad, it seems we're on different tracks here.

You mentioned that you've had similar experiences to the VRI, what were they like?

[Virtual Particle]

You mentioned the example of coming out of a subway that I am familiar with that and one could say that fundamentally I understand where you are coming from.

Any thoughts?

[Hugh]

You mentioned the example of coming out of a subway that I am familiar with that and one could say that fundamentally I understand where you are coming from.

Any thoughts?

Yes, it's happened to me too.

When coming up, sometimes everything is flipped around from it's normal view, so your brain flips it back to normal so that your bearings are back to normal and you know where you are again.

It's interesting that with practice, one can normalize all four different viewpoints to a certain extent, so that one can consciously flip between them at will.

This is so fascinating, that there are different viewpoints to our surroundings.

[Virtual Particle]

There is that saying about 4 blind men approaching an elephant from 4 directions and then being asked to describe an elephant.

It relates to our problem with understanding reality.

Any thoughts?

[Hugh]

There is that saying about 4 blind men approaching an elephant from 4 directions and then being asked to describe an elephant.

It relates to our problem with understanding reality.

Any thoughts?

Well the difference here is that it's the same person approaching from 4 directions.

[Virtual Particle]

Individual experiences are fundamental to human experiences as a whole and something as simple as a strait line is a dimension.

Any thoughts?

[Hugh]

Individual experiences are fundamental to human experiences as a whole and something as simple as a strait line is a dimension.

Any thoughts?

There may be a link to our experience of this phenomenon and something as simple as a higher dimension being available for the different viewpoints to occur.

By the way, that stereographic projection of a rotating 4D cube in your avatar is fascinating.

I have a 4D cube as an avatar too.

Have you studied aspects of higher dimensions?

[Virtual Particle]

I am essentially a Native American taught to understand that it is possible that in 2012 Judeo-Christian society will have to come to terms with the fact that there is planet Earth and Planet Eden and they are both a part of a cycle. There were these plants that tasted just like meat, so basically, the lion was so full he would lay down next to the lamb.

I also know much about psychology and physics, I ran a school in the US with teenagers who were charged with murder, but never convicted (some individuals as many as 12 such incidents).

And I kind of set myself up as a person who would want this forum to be a place where folks can talk about abstractions.

Any thoughts?

Edited July 29, 2009 by Triad

[Hugh]

It's commendable that you ran that school for those teenagers who needed help, good stuff.

Hey, if you've taught physics, you've got an understanding about dimensions and higher math and so forth, plus your avatar is 4D too, so I'd be curious to hear what you have to say about a picture I came up with that might relate this VRI experience that we've had to higher dimensions...

By the way, here's the Necker Cube for those that haven't seen it:

The red dot can either be on the outside or inside of the box, and the instant flip between the two viewpoints is similar to the VRI, except the VRI happens in full 3D, with you and your surroundings right in it.

Edited July 29, 2009 by Hugh

[Virtual Particle]

Ambiguity

See also: Ambiguity#Visual art

The Necker Cube is an ambiguous line drawing. It is a wire-frame drawing of a cube in oblique perspective, which means that parallel edges of the cube are drawn as parallel lines in the picture. When two lines cross, the picture does not show which is in front and which is behind. This makes the picture ambiguous; it can be interpreted two different ways. When a person stares at the picture, it will often seem to flip back and forth between the two valid interpretations (so-called multistable perception).

Necker Cube on the left, impossible cube on the right.

One possible interpretation of the Necker Cube, often claimed to be the most common interpretation[citation needed]

Another possible interpretationThe effect is interesting because each part of the picture is ambiguous by itself, yet the human visual system picks an interpretation of each part that makes the whole consistent. The Necker Cube is sometimes used to test computer models of the human visual system to see whether they can arrive at consistent interpretations of the image the same way humans do.

Humans do not usually see an inconsistent interpretation of the cube. A cube whose edges cross in an inconsistent way is an example of an impossible object, specifically an impossible cube (compare Penrose triangle).

With the cube on the left, most people see the lower-left face as being in front most of the time. This is possibly because people view objects from above, with the top side visible, far more often than from below, with the bottom visible, so the brain "prefers" the interpretation that the cube is viewed from above.

There is evidence that by focusing on different parts of the figure one can force a more stable perception of the cube. The intersection of the two faces that are parallel to the observer forms a rectangle, and the lines that converge on the square form a "y-junction" at the two diagonally opposite sides. If an observer focuses on the upper "y-junction" the lower left face will appear to be in front. The upper right face will appear to be in front if the eyes focus on the lower junction (Einhauser, et al., 2004).

Rest of link

You have established a valid argument and made very relevant points.

Any thoughts?

[Hugh]

You have established a valid argument and made very relevant points.

Any thoughts?

Hey thanks for that Triad!

I appreciate the time you've spent in this thread.

Would you be able to try the mirror experiment sometime and let me know if it worked for you too?

Thanks.

[Virtual Particle]

This combination of properties cannot be realized by any 3-dimensional object in ordinary Euclidean space. Such an object can exist in certain Euclidean 3-manifolds.[1] There also exist 3-dimensional solid shapes each of which, when viewed from a certain angle, appears the same as the purple, green, and yellow 2-dimensional depiction of the Penrose triangle on this page. The term "Penrose triangle" can refer to the 2-dimensional depiction or the impossible object itself.

M.C. Escher's lithograph Waterfall depicts a watercourse that flows in a zigzag along the long sides of two elongated Penrose triangles, so that it ends up two stories higher than it began. The resulting waterfall, forming the short sides of both triangles, drives a water wheel. Escher helpfully points out that in order to keep the wheel turning some water must occasionally be added to compensate for evaporation.

If a line is traced around the Penrose triangle, a 3-loop Möbius strip is formed.

Rest of link

I will but that will actually be a couple of days.

Any thoughts?

[Hugh]

Rest of link

I will but that will actually be a couple of days.

Any thoughts?

Thanks for the Penrose triangle link.

It's interesting how the photo angle can make the "impossible" possible lol.

Good luck with the mirror experiment!

[.i.]

Anyone here ever get their bearings turned around and experience what is known as a Visual Reorientation Illusion (VRI)?

It's when everything around you, including you, experience an instant rotation of your directional bearings - either 90 degrees to the right or left, or 180 degrees completely around.

That is weird... But it has unfortionatly not ever happened to me Is there a easy way to induce this weird mind-flip?

NVM: I read page 2 and found a guide, thanks!

Edited July 29, 2009 by brawl

[Virtual Particle]

Physics and Psychology are both felids where fundementals are stressed.

As is a Native American upbringing.

Sir Roger Penrose

Any thoughts?

Edited July 29, 2009 by Triad

[Hugh]

Physics and Psychology are both felids where fundementals are stressed.

As is a Native American upbringing.

Sir Roger Penrose

Any thoughts?

Wow, I spent some time going through Penrose's info and some of his theories and they are amazing... what a mind.

[Hugh]

That is weird... But it has unfortionatly not ever happened to me Is there a easy way to induce this weird mind-flip?

NVM: I read page 2 and found a guide, thanks!

Hey brawl, thanks for your interest and let me know if you experience a VRI thanks!

[Virtual Particle]

The point being you are addressing an issue which is being discussed at another level.

Hugh, it is possible that NASA is going to adress its isolation studies in a different way, in the not to distant future.

Any thoughts?

Edited July 29, 2009 by Triad

[Hugh]

The point being you are addressing an issue which is being discussed at another level.

Hugh it is possible that NASA is going to adress its isolation studies in a different way, in the not to distant future.

Any thoughts?

I have no idea about that Triad, I'm not sure exactly what you mean...

Would it be possible to keep on the VRI topic lol.

PM me about other stuff.

[Virtual Particle]

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/

Any thoughts?

PS: Dude, there is this really cool book which was not exactly about the "Emperors Mind", it was prepared by Penrose and Hammerhoff. Although Roger Penrose became Sir Roger Penrose because of the book "The Emperor's New Mind" ( I mean the Queen of England made him a Knight because of the book he wrote called the "Emperor's New Mind," although that was not the book he did with Hammerhoff).

Suggested Reading Shadows of the Mind by Roger Penrose and Stuart Hammerhoff

Edited July 29, 2009 by Triad

[Hugh]

Some great reading there Triad, thanks.

The study of how the brain generates thoughts and feelings is fascinating.

Their work with the Orchestrated Objective Reduction Theory "proposed that when condensates in the brain undergo an objective reduction of their wave function, that collapse connects to non-computational decision taking/experience embedded in the geometry of fundamental spacetime."

The exact geometry of spacetime is still not fully understood.

It looks only 3D, (with one time dimension as well), but there are still unanswered questions about how it all fits together and works.

Michio Kaku has some great ideas about the possible existence of higher dimensions to explain how the universe works:

_______________

"To see how higher dimensions helps to unify the laws of nature, physicists use the mathematical device called “field theory.” For example, the magnetic field of a bar magnet resembles a spider's web which fills up all of space. To describe the magnetic field, we introduce the field, a series of numbers defined at each point in space which describes the intensity and direction of the force at that point. James Clerk Maxwell, in the last century, proved that the electro-magnetic force can be described by four numbers at each point in four dimensional space-time. These four numbers, in turn, obey a set of equations (called Maxwell's field equations).

For the gravitational force, Einstein showed that the field requires a total of 10 numbers at each point in four dimensions. The gravitational field, in turn, obey Einstein's field equations. The key idea of Theodore Kaluza in the 1920s was to write down a five dimensional theory of gravity. In five dimensions, the gravitational field has 15 independent numbers, which can be arranged in a five dimensional array. Kaluza then re-defined the 5th column and row of the gravitational field to be the electromagnetic field of Maxwell. The truly miraculous feature of this construction is that the five dimensional theory of gravity reduces down precisely to Einstein's original theory of gravity plus Maxwell's theory of light. In other words, by adding the fifth dimension, we have trivially unified light with gravity. In other words, light is now viewed as vibrations in the fifth dimension. In five dimensions, there is “enough room” to unify both gravity and light.

This trick is easily extended. For example, if we generalize the theory to N dimensions, then the N dimensional gravitational field can be split-up into the following pieces (see fig. 5). Now, out pops a generalization of the electromagnetic field, called the “Yang-Mills field,” which is known to describe the nuclear forces. The nuclear forces, therefore, may be viewed as vibrations of higher dimensional space. Simply put, by adding more dimensions, we are able to describe more forces. Similarly, by adding higher dimensions and further embellishing this approach (with something called “supersymmetry), we can explain the entire particle “zoo” that has been discovered over the past thirty years, with bizarre names like quarks, neutrinos, muons, gluons, etc. Although the mathematics required to extend the idea of Kaluza has reached truly breathtaking heights, startling even professional mathematicians, the basic idea behind unification remains surprisingly simple: the forces of nature can be viewed as vibrations in higher dimensional space."

_______________

I'd be interested in hearing any more experiences anyone has had with this phenomenon...

Edited July 31, 2009 by Hugh

[Virtual Particle]

A good friend of mine once presented to me that it was possible that the gluons and photons do have anti-particle pairs the flips from positive to negative, that are occurring at (for photons) or near (for gluons) the speed of light.

Consider a really good soup where all the ingredients are blended in exact proportion on the quantum level.

Any thoughts?

[Hugh]

A good friend of mine once presented to me that it was possible that the gluons and photons do have anti-particle pairs the flips from positive to negative, that are occurring at (for photons) or near (for gluons) the speed of light.

Consider a really good soup where all the ingredients are blended in exact proportion on the quantum level.

Any thoughts?

I'm not sure how this can help explain VRIs, could you elaborate?

The study of particle physics is fascinating, but I've only scratched the surface.

I've read how higher dimensions could be so tiny that they are curled up and too small to be seen on a small scale.

An example to explain this is if you were to look at a garden hose close up, you would see that there is a length, height and a depth to it.

But if you look at the hose from a far distance, you only see the hose as a thin line.

You see the length of the hose and its height, but you don't see the third curled around dimension - it's depth, even though it is still as real as the other two dimensions.

The curl of the hose is too tiny to be seen, even though it's there.

So if there are actual higher dimensions to the tiny particles that the universe is made up of, then the particles of what we are looking at, and the particles that we are made up from, would have those same curled up tiny dimensions themselves.

Consider this picture of a Calabi-Yau grid of tiny particles:

It's a representation of the possible curled up dimensions at a very small scale.

If this is the reality of the close-up view of what we and the universe are made up of, then think of the number of angles of viewpoint of light that would be available between us and what we are looking at.

We would be able to see the things around us from different angles, more than we think we can if there are more than only 3 spatial dimensions.

There would be common planes of vision that could be viewed from perpendicular directions.

The avatar that I use is a representation of a 4D cube.

See how certain sides of each cube are shared by others, they're common.

In a similar sense what I'm thinking with the VRI is that our planes of vision can be viewed from various perpendicular directions, because those directions actually exist in higher dimensions of space, and the particles that we are made up from and what we are looking at around us, have those extra directions available to view from.

It is commonly thought that if one turns in the fourth dimension that one would become reversed, as if in a mirror.

But what is not considered is that if one turns, and the viewpoint around turns as well, then both are reversed, and the result is only a change in orientation.

Here is a link to a page by Alex Bogomolny about The Tesseract (a 4D cube):

http://www.maa.org/editorial/knot/tesseract.html

In it, he talks about a 4D cube.

Here is a quote (all highlighting in blue done by me):

_______________

"A segment, as a portion of a line (a 1-dimensional space), is bounded by two points, each a 0-dimensional object. A 2-dimensional square is bounded by 4 1-dimensional segments. A 3-dimensional cube is bounded by 6 2-dimensional squares. A 4-dimensional tesseract is bounded by 8 3-dimensional cubes.

In a horizontal plane, a square has an upside and a downside. Only one is visible when its rotation is confined to the plane. In the 3-dimensional space both sides are in principle visible. In 3D, a cube has an inside and an outside. However it is turned in the 3-dimensional space, only its outside is visible, the inside remains hidden. In 4D, a cube can be turned inside out by rotating around one of its 2-dimensional faces. That's right. In 2D, we can only rotate a shape around a point. In 3D, we can also rotate around a 1-dimensional axis - for example, an edge in the case of a cube. In 4D, a shape can be rotated around a plane. (In the above applet one can clearly observe the phenomenon by fixing the location of the origin.) It must be understood that in 4D a 3-dimensional cube has neither inside nor outside. All points of a cube are as much exposed in 4D as are the points of a square in 3D. (This is what makes a prospect of 4D-travel so unpleasant. It also follows from the above that 4D-travel is extremely dangerous. Back in 3D, a traveller may find himself in a state of excessive introversion.)

Vacuously, in a square there is only 1 square that contains a given edge. In a cube, every edge is shared by 2 squares. In a tesseract, 3 squares meet at every edge. Taken pairwise, squares through the same edge define three cubes. Detecting the three cubes seems akin to shifting a view point when observing the Necker cube.

I found this observation useful when playing with the applet below. What is it about? Travelling in 4D may have a milder effect on a 3D body than turning it inside out. It may only change its orientation."

_______________

There is where the possible connection to the VRI fits in.

We have what is a 3D viewpoint of our surroundings, but if there are actual higher dimensions to ourselves and the space around us, then that 3D viewpoint could be flipped around within that space with a Necker cube type instant flip, and that would involve a change in bearing orientation, which is what the VRI may actually be evidence of.

Thoughts?

Edited August 2, 2009 by Hugh

[Mattshark]

Some great reading there Triad, thanks.

The study of how the brain generates thoughts and feelings is fascinating.

Their work with the Orchestrated Objective Reduction Theory "proposed that when condensates in the brain undergo an objective reduction of their wave function, that collapse connects to non-computational decision taking/experience embedded in the geometry of fundamental spacetime."

The exact geometry of spacetime is still not fully understood.

It looks only 3D, (with one time dimension as well), but there are still unanswered questions about how it all fits together and works.

Michio Kaku has some great ideas about the possible existence of higher dimensions to explain how the universe works:

_______________

"To see how higher dimensions helps to unify the laws of nature, physicists use the mathematical device called “field theory.” For example, the magnetic field of a bar magnet resembles a spider's web which fills up all of space. To describe the magnetic field, we introduce the field, a series of numbers defined at each point in space which describes the intensity and direction of the force at that point. James Clerk Maxwell, in the last century, proved that the electro-magnetic force can be described by four numbers at each point in four dimensional space-time. These four numbers, in turn, obey a set of equations (called Maxwell's field equations).

For the gravitational force, Einstein showed that the field requires a total of 10 numbers at each point in four dimensions. The gravitational field, in turn, obey Einstein's field equations. The key idea of Theodore Kaluza in the 1920s was to write down a five dimensional theory of gravity. In five dimensions, the gravitational field has 15 independent numbers, which can be arranged in a five dimensional array. Kaluza then re-defined the 5th column and row of the gravitational field to be the electromagnetic field of Maxwell. The truly miraculous feature of this construction is that the five dimensional theory of gravity reduces down precisely to Einstein's original theory of gravity plus Maxwell's theory of light. In other words, by adding the fifth dimension, we have trivially unified light with gravity. In other words, light is now viewed as vibrations in the fifth dimension. In five dimensions, there is “enough room” to unify both gravity and light.

This trick is easily extended. For example, if we generalize the theory to N dimensions, then the N dimensional gravitational field can be split-up into the following pieces (see fig. 5). Now, out pops a generalization of the electromagnetic field, called the “Yang-Mills field,” which is known to describe the nuclear forces. The nuclear forces, therefore, may be viewed as vibrations of higher dimensional space. Simply put, by adding more dimensions, we are able to describe more forces. Similarly, by adding higher dimensions and further embellishing this approach (with something called “supersymmetry), we can explain the entire particle “zoo” that has been discovered over the past thirty years, with bizarre names like quarks, neutrinos, muons, gluons, etc. Although the mathematics required to extend the idea of Kaluza has reached truly breathtaking heights, startling even professional mathematicians, the basic idea behind unification remains surprisingly simple: the forces of nature can be viewed as vibrations in higher dimensional space."

_______________

I'd be interested in hearing any more experiences anyone has had with this phenomenon...

If you read Hammeroff (who has a very poor reputation) and Penrose, read Tegmark's seminal paper on why quantum consciousness does not work

The Importance of Quantum Decoherence in Brain Processes

Tegmark's maths falsify the idea of quantum mind because the neurons do not fire faster enough for there to be a quantum effect, even Hammeroff (who is neither a biologist or a physicist but and anaesthetist) can't even make this work with his own calculations and hence he is not so well considered. There is no support for quantum mind in biology and it is very much accepted that biology (no surprise because it is all on the macro scale) works on Newtonian mechanics.