APOD: The Holographic Principle and a Teapot (2021 Oct 03)

[APOD Robot]

The Holographic Principle and a Teapot

Explanation: Sure, you can see the 2D rectangle of colors, but can you see deeper? Counting color patches in the featured image, you might estimate that the most information that this 2D digital image can hold is about 60 (horizontal) x 50(vertical) x 256 (possible colors) = 768,000 bits. However, the yet-unproven Holographic Principle states that, counter-intuitively, the information in a 2D panel can include all of the information in a 3D room that can be enclosed by the panel. The principle derives from the idea that the Planck length, the length scale where quantum mechanics begins to dominate classical gravity, is one side of an area that can hold only about one bit of information. The limit was first postulated by physicist Gerard 't Hooft in 1993. It can arise from generalizations from seemingly distant speculation that the information held by a black hole is determined not by its enclosed volume but by the surface area of its event horizon. The term "holographic" arises from a hologram analogy where three-dimension images are created by projecting light through a flat screen. Beware, some people staring at the featured image may not think it encodes just 768,000 bits -- nor even 256^3,000 bit permutations -- rather they might claim it encodes a three-dimensional teapot.

<< Previous APOD

This Day in APOD

Next APOD >>

[Ann]

APOD Robot:

Explanation: Sure, you can see the 2D rectangle of colors, but can you see deeper? Counting color patches in the featured image, you might estimate that the most information that this 2D digital image can hold is about 60 (horizontal) x 50(vertical) x 256 (possible colors) = 768,000 bits. However, the yet-unproven Holographic Principle states that, counter-intuitively, the information in a 2D panel can include all of the information in a 3D room that can be enclosed by the panel. The principle derives from the idea that the Planck length, the length scale where quantum mechanics begins to dominate classical gravity, is one side of an area that can hold only about one bit of information. The limit was first postulated by physicist Gerard 't Hooft in 1993. It can arise from generalizations from seemingly distant speculation that the information held by a black hole is determined not by its enclosed volume but by the surface area of its event horizon. The term "holographic" arises from a hologram analogy where three-dimension images are created by projecting light through a flat screen. Beware, some people staring at the featured image may not think it encodes just 768,000 bits -- nor even 256^3,000 bit permutations -- rather they might claim it encodes a three-dimensional teapot.

Me:

Ann (in confused triplicate)

[zendae1]

I can see these things pretty easily, but always inside out. Real clear 3D, but convex becomes concave and vv. For me, the teapot is more like a mold for a teapot.

[Tekija]

It is a three dimensional image of a teapot suspended in the air in front of a vertical backdrop and a slanting base.

Because we are binocular, we can see three dimensions. This is called ”single binocular vision”. It has three ”steps”. The first is simultaneous vision. Both eyes independently see the same image. The second is fusion. When our brain detects the two similar (not identical, see below) images - the sensory part of fusion - it will automatically and uncosciously precisely align the images into a single one by adjusting the direction of the eyes - the motor part of the fusion. We do not want to see double. Once the images of the two eyes are aligned, our brain notices that they are not in fact identical. This is because right eye sees it slightly from the right side and our left eye from the left - this is called disparity. Within half a second or so after aligning the two images, our brain calculates from this disparity a three dimensional view - the third step of single binocular vision called stereopsis.

But this three dimensionality is limited to a relatively narrow field, narrowest directly in front of us and a but wide in our peripheral visual field, called Panum’s space. Outside this space we continuously see double. This does not bother us because our brain is accustomed to these physiological diplopic images (but out a Finger in front of you and focus to it, puting it thus inside Panum’s space and everything behind your finger will be seen double. Now focus to the obects behind your finger, thus moving Panum’s space there, and you will see your finger doubled).

The APOD of today plays with single binocular vision. It has a repeating vertical motif that is there to stimulate fusion. Then there are the two disparate images that, once fusion is activated, within the half second or so will be spotted by our brain. It will find them different and will calculate the three dimensional image to us. Once ready, fusion keeps it visible and fixed even if we tilt the screen or look at it sideways. The third component is the random ”noise” added to confuse us so to hide the two disparate images. The three dimensional view emanates from the fact that the two images are slightly at dirrerent distances from the margin of the repeating vertical motif.

There are two ways of getting the stereoscopiv view. If you have latent outward squint like many of us have (almost all shortsighted myopic individuals have this exophoria) you can just let your eyes wander a bit so that one vertical motif moves approximately on top of the next one. The brain will notice they are similar, but not identical, fusion will align them perfectly and the brain will calculate the stereopsis. If you let your eyes wander two much so that they will skip on vertical motif and align the next one, your stereopsis will produce an abstract three dimensional image - a Salvador Dali teapot if you wish.

If you are not blessed with exophoria, it will be more difficult. You will need to look somewhat beyond Panum’s space and then out your screen within it. If you have latent inward squint, esophoria, or you align your eye on the wrong side of Panum’s space, the three dimensionality will reverse as the eyes are crossed the unintended way.

[RocketRon]

You may need to get a bit closer to your screen to be able to see it ...

[madtom1999]

I've never managed to see one of these. I put it down to spending 10 years as a chip designer looking at things not much different from these! The best I can manage is looking at a grid and getting it concave/convex. I must confess having seen a friend suffer an agonising headache for several hours after flicking through a book of these things I'm in no rush.

[VictorBorun]

There can be conspirators secretely putting tea pots in Eath's orbit and our current telescopy wouldn't catch them.
What Russel never supposed even as a counter-point is

Click to view full size image

a pair of giant champaign glasses

[VictorBorun]

it's real hard for a layman to reconcile the event horizon of a black hole (as seen by an outsider) with smooth and calm space around an observer crossing that event horizon.
Is the layer of space close to the event horizon — a thin hologram or a deep well leading to another part of space…

Then again a thick layer hologram is thin for an outsider but still much thicker than the wavelength of light processed by interference

[rochelimit]

I can see these things pretty easily, but always inside out. Real clear 3D, but convex becomes concave and vv. For me, the teapot is more like a mold for a teapot.

It's the 3DSmax teapot! this image is really old!

I can see both hollowed version and flying out version! It looks really cool when you see it as it should be as you can see the vertical background going down all the way, while the horizontal plane stops, so there's a "cliff" hidden behind the teapot, so cool

[Ann]

Russel's teapot

---

Maybe it's Russel's teapot?

Wikipedia wrote:

Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.

Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion.[1] He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot, too small to be seen by telescopes, orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong.

Ann

[JohnD]

Like Russell, just on the assertion that there is something there, I'm not going to waste my time staring at a picture of semirandom dots in the hope that it will resolve into an image. Next!
John

[Tszabeau]

I see the teapot floating in front of filled bleachers, on game day, with a line of penguin cheerleaders out front.

[orin stepanek]

It took me a few tries but i did see it! It looked like a teapot shaped hole in the surroundings; but it was there!

[stevie]

I wonder if a printed image and an image on a screen make any difference. I have a book of holographic images which, with some difficulty, I can make out the floating images. I know you're supposed to focus behind the picture, but for this image on screen, try as I might, all I get is cross-eyed and a headache.

[bls0326]

So far I have not seen the teapot whether I am viewing the image up close, normal distance, or crossed-eyes.

[XgeoX]

Under the link to “counter intuitively”…

“ We suggest and motivate a precise equivalence between uncompactified 11-dimensional M theory and the N=∞ limit of the supersymmetric matrix quantum mechanics describing D0 branes. The evidence for the conjecture consists of several correspondences between the two theories. As a consequence of supersymmetry the simple matrix model is rich enough to describe the properties of the entire Fock space of massless well separated particles of the supergravity theory. In one particular kinematic situation the leading large distance interaction of these particles is exactly described by supergravity. The model appears to be a nonperturbative realization of the holographic principle. The membrane states required by M theory are contained as excitations of the matrix model. The membrane world volume is a noncommutative geometry embedded in a noncommutative spacetime.”

Got that? Good, there will be a test!

Eric

[Chris Peterson]

I can see these things pretty easily, but always inside out. Real clear 3D, but convex becomes concave and vv. For me, the teapot is more like a mold for a teapot.

There are two ways you can merge an image like this. You can let your eyes drift apart (like looking through the image to something behind it), or you can cross your eyes a bit (like looking at something just in front of the image). And these images can be designed to use either method. This one is designed for the first way. That will show the teapot normally. Do it the second way (with crossed eyes) and your brain will still merge them, but now each eye is getting the wrong image, and you get that odd inverted look- as you say, more like a mold, concave instead of convex.

[zendae1]

I can see these things pretty easily, but always inside out. Real clear 3D, but convex becomes concave and vv. For me, the teapot is more like a mold for a teapot.

It's the 3DSmax teapot! this image is really old!

I can see both hollowed version and flying out version! It looks really cool when you see it as it should be as you can see the vertical background going down all the way, while the horizontal plane stops, so there's a "cliff" hidden behind the teapot, so cool

Long before these puzzles arrived we used to do the same thing looking thru a chain link fence into a valley. Once the two disparate images aligned vertically, all normal dimension perception went out the window. We even lost balance.

[Fred the Cat]

It’s like a Candygram with nothing in it. Unless the pot is filled with a substance much like water that has a lot of zip in it but is really hard to wrap your head around.

Suppose the tea is an autostereogram full of land sharks?

[zendae1]

I can see these things pretty easily, but always inside out. Real clear 3D, but convex becomes concave and vv. For me, the teapot is more like a mold for a teapot.

There are two ways you can merge an image like this. You can let your eyes drift apart (like looking through the image to something behind it), or you can cross your eyes a bit (like looking at something just in front of the image). And these images can be designed to use either method. This one is designed for the first way. That will show the teapot normally. Do it the second way (with crossed eyes) and your brain will still merge them, but now each eye is getting the wrong image, and you get that odd inverted look- as you say, more like a mold, concave instead of convex.

Thank you for that. It explains why I've seen both ways.
When these images first came out - I saw them at Spencer Gifts many moons ago - they all performed 'correctly' for me. The other way ended up being more favored I suppose.

[Vaquero]

I stared at it for a minute or so, and then I thought to let my eyes go a bit out of alignment. Shazam! There it was!
I may have a slight advantage in that I have a bit of strabismus and it takes a little effort to make my eyes converge on an object. Letting my right eye wander a little is all it took to make the teapot appear.

[johnnydeep]

I can see these things pretty easily, but always inside out. Real clear 3D, but convex becomes concave and vv. For me, the teapot is more like a mold for a teapot.

There are two ways you can merge an image like this. You can let your eyes drift apart (like looking through the image to something behind it), or you can cross your eyes a bit (like looking at something just in front of the image). And these images can be designed to use either method. This one is designed for the first way. That will show the teapot normally. Do it the second way (with crossed eyes) and your brain will still merge them, but now each eye is getting the wrong image, and you get that odd inverted look- as you say, more like a mold, concave instead of convex.

Thank you for that. It explains why I've seen both ways.
When these images first came out - I saw them at Spencer Gifts many moons ago - they all performed 'correctly' for me. The other way ended up being more favored I suppose.

I can easily see images such as these, but never in the convex view. But I have never been able to see those double image cross-eyed stereograms that Chris posts from time to time to help those not possessing red/blue 3D glasses.

As for the theory that "a surface can encode all the info in a 3D space", I call BS. Even assuming the volume and surface subdivisions are limited to Planck length granularity, the number of Planck volumes (i.e. the maximum bits of information) increases faster than the number of Planck faces enclosing it. So, if we must map Planck volumes one-to-one to Planck areas on the enclosing surface, in order to be able to represent all of them, we will run out. Hmm...unless...the number of possible volume bits can be encoded using 2^{number of faces}, where each face encodes a 0 or 1, allowing 2^{number of faces} permutations to encode whether each enclosed volume is a 0 or 1. In which case, 2^{number of faces} will increase MUCH faster than the number of volume bits. But this feels a lot like cheating and is therefore probably wrong.

On the other hand, the math is beyond me, and I'm sure the smarter people have it all rationally explained to the satisfaction of many.

[Joe6666]

I can see these things pretty easily, but always inside out. Real clear 3D, but convex becomes concave and vv. For me, the teapot is more like a mold for a teapot.

It's the 3DSmax teapot! this image is really old!

I can see both hollowed version and flying out version! It looks really cool when you see it as it should be as you can see the vertical background going down all the way, while the horizontal plane stops, so there's a "cliff" hidden behind the teapot, so cool

I see two teapots - a small one in front of a larger one.

[Fred the Cat]

The tea leaves us searching for
math sequences that may help understand the basis of reality.

[Tekija]

You have skipped one motif, i.e you see the Dali teapot, see above.