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

[Mr Hull]

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.

I found this quite interesting and related to encoding information of a larger 3D volume with a 2D surface, and all sorts of stuff I didn't really understand

https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-spac ... -20190103/

[johnnydeep]

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.

I found this quite interesting and related to encoding information of a larger 3D volume with a 2D surface, and all sorts of stuff I didn't really understand

https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-spac ... -20190103/

Thanks. I both love and hate Quanta Magazine articles, which are often long on words, but lacking in enough convincing details to be fully illuminating. This article was one of those

[zendae1]

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

It's curious; it's as if the virtual dimensional permutations continue. I can see several layers in, all the way to the vortex. Likely you are seeing something similar? We assume what can be seen is standard for all of us, but can different brains - some at least - derive an alternate solution? I wonder how many see what I do: concave teapot impression, but distinct layers going farther back, 4 that I can see. Too bad a camera can't take this picture...afaik...

[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.

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.

You've merged too far. Straighten out your eyes even more and you can get a stack of three.

[zendae1]

As for the theory that "a surface can encode all the info in a 3D space", I call BS.

Perhaps in this context, 'virtual' information can be implied, and if so, and if it is accurate and dependable, can the info can be accessed, even tho from our pov in 2D it is still intangible, but there? Just a thought.

[zendae1]

You've merged too far. Straighten out your eyes even more and you can get a stack of three.

Yes I was playing with the focusing/layering. And curiously, I decided to take the readers off and see if slightly blurry vision would alter anything.
Not only did it still work, but the image 'puzzle pieces' became ultra-clear; all blurriness vanished.

[Mountainjim62]

If you do it the "inside out way" the 3D image jumps off the page at you and you can run your hands though it. Pretty Cool!

[strcat]

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.

I am the same way.
I cross my eyes backwards from the way the image is made.
So I see a hole where the tea pot should be.

[Guest]

If you have strabismus as I do, you will never be able to see the floating object because your eyes cannot focus on the same object at the same time, and your brain cannot fuse what your eyes see into a single image. There will always be a double image (one complete object and a faint ghost of the same object to one side or the other). I have tried and tried and tried and tried to see these images in these puzzles, and I have failed even when a picture of the image is overlaid onto the puzzle. Most of the time, I do not notice the ghost image, because only one eye is seeing the complete image, while my brain ignores the coming from the turned-in eye. While I can focus with either eye, I cannot focus both together. But I am so used to this that I do not notice anything out of the ordinary except in situations where depth perception is critical, such as in peering through a pair of binoculars or firing a weapon. If y'all can see the teapot, God bless you.

[zendae1]

My mother had that so I know what you're saying. The good news for me is that I have now learned after all these years how to see these images correctly! So for those like me who always see it in reverse, try this:

Bring the image right to the tip of your nose. And if you are farsighted like me it's going to look a bit blurry. That doesn't matter. The brain is already starting to fuse the image correctly. Slowly move the image back from your face, maybe an inch or two at a time. The 3D image will now come into Focus!

My friend had this old book of images called Magic Eye. I was able to see every image in the book correctly using this method. And when I tried it on the a p o d teapot I saw the teapot perfectly.

[iRon]

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.

Excellent explanation, thank you!
I see 1 partially transparent teapot (top center is transparent or deconstructed), then 3 pots behind, against straight, smooth walls, slanting towards each other until they meet along a lateral midline in the distance. What’s my brain seeing that other brains aren’t?

[iRon]

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 >>

I’m correcting my initial comment. This is beyond cool. I’ve been able to see 4 3-D images. The flying teapot in front of two merged ones, a single well-formed one, a partially deconstructed one over 3, and what appears to be a window cutout to reveal the penguin cheering crowd beyond the roughly teapot shaped window.
All of this depends on distance between eyes and screen, and orientation. BTW, I am a lifelong myopic, -1.75-2.25

[zendae1]

I just found another way to see the correct image:

I focused on a bench that was just above the computer screen and beyond it. Right away the teapot appeared peripherally even tho I was looking at the bench. Moving down to the image, it remained perfectly.

This may not be an astronomic photo, but I am 'over the moon' that these folks presented the picture. Something I had perennially failed at I can now do because of it.

[farlightteam]

Siempre se aprende algo nuevo