Questions

[Azade12]

Hi everyone, 

I've been interested in questions that are pretty difficult to answer I was wondering if some could answer. I have two thus far.

 

1. Lets say you're in a pool with goggles. Your eyes see both the top of the water, and part of the goggles are submerged under water (so you see the pool both underwater and on top of it). We know that the two sub-and unsubmerged parts look different, and they both take up some space in the real world to get in your field of view. We know that there is a transition from bottom to top, and the transition looks immiediate.  If there was a place of change that took up space, what would its width be? Pic:

 

TL;DRYes I know this picture is pretty crappy, but my point was, if you were to have a top and bottom half in your FOV, what would the place of change's size be?

 

2. So we all know that humans perceive and walk in 3 dimensional space the best, yet we sight this using our vision most frequently. If someone were to say that vision is seen in 2 dimensions, not 3, how would you answer? Could there be an argument for 2 dimensions?

 

Edit: first question clearer, changed title.

Edited January 9, 2020 by Azade12
Clearer topic better title

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, Azade12 said:

Good morning everyone, 

I've been interested in questions that are pretty difficult to answer and just wanted to give some interesting questions to think about while you're browsing around. I have two thus far.

 

1. Lets say that you have a glass of water. And in that glass you can see inside the water, and the top. (As if you were to split your vision into two parts, one a submerged view and the other unsubmerged in the same field of view. What is the measurement  of the intermediate part of transition between the two phases?

 

You're talking about the distance between where the water starts and ends and where the surface is?

 

That's not really a thought provoking question, so much as it's a "well, let's just measure it".

 

I don't know the answer. But the answer exists, and can easily (well, relatively easily) be measured. The answer may also differ depending on atmospheric conditions, and the composition of the water itself (if we assume pure distilled water, vs regular mineral tap water - and in the case of tap water, it varies wildly by location).

1 hour ago, Azade12 said:

2. So we all know that humans perceive and walk in 3 dimensional space the best, yet we sight this using our vision most frequently. If someone were to say that vision is seen in 2 dimensions, not 3, how would you answer? Could there be an argument for 2 dimensions?

Humans have 3 dimensional vision due to depth perception. Our eyes are exactly the same way that 3D Cinema cameras work - you have two of them, slightly offset so that the parallax from the different positions can identify depth.

 

A person with one eye has significantly reduced depth perception because they cannot use parallax to their advantage. You might be able to argue that a one-eyed person "sees" 2 dimensionally, but even in that case, they still fundamentally understand that what they are seeing is in 3 dimensions.

 

[Azade12]

21 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

You're talking about the distance between where the water starts and ends and where the surface is?

 

That's not really a thought provoking question, so much as it's a "well, let's just measure it".

 

I don't know the answer. But the answer exists, and can easily (well, relatively easily) be measured. The answer may also differ depending on atmospheric conditions, and the composition of the water itself (if we assume pure distilled water, vs regular mineral tap water - and in the case of tap water, it varies wildly by location).

Humans have 3 dimensional vision due to depth perception. Our eyes are exactly the same way that 3D Cinema cameras work - you have two of them, slightly offset so that the parallax from the different positions can identify depth.

 

A person with one eye has significantly reduced depth perception because they cannot use parallax to their advantage. You might be able to argue that a one-eyed person "sees" 2 dimensionally, but even in that case, they still fundamentally understand that what they are seeing is in 3 dimensions.

 

Hey Dalek,

Thanks for answering my question. I agree for the second one, but for the first ill clarify. let me outline a scenario. Lets say you're in a pool with goggles. Your eyes see both the top of the water, and part of the goggles are submerged under water (so you see the pool under water). We know that the two sub-and unsubmerged parts look different, and they both take up some space in the real world to get in your fov. I was saying what was the middle part, the intermediate transitioning parts size between the two phases?

 

Thanks

[wasab]

2 hours ago, Azade12 said:

What is the measurement  of the intermediate part of transition between the two phases?

 

Not really sure what you are asking here. There is no intermmediate part. Either it's submerge or it's not. There is no partial submersion. 

 

2 hours ago, Azade12 said:

 

2. So we all know that humans perceive and walk in 3 dimensional space the best, yet we sight this using our vision most frequently. If someone were to say that vision is seen in 2 dimensions, not 3, how would you answer? Could there be an argument for 2 dimensions?

There already is 2 dimension. To have three dimensions, two dimensions must already exist plus the third hence 3 dimensions. Your eyes use differences in field of view from both eyes to detect depth. However closing one eye does not mean your world is suddenly reduce to a flat 2 d plane. You are still in 3 dimensions and you are a 3 dimensional beings. Your brain will interpret whatever you see as such. The only exception is that you lose the ability to detect distance between two objects because your brain need to detect depth to do this. 

[dalekphalm]

45 minutes ago, Azade12 said:

Hey Dalek,

Thanks for answering my question. I agree for the second one, but for the first ill clarify. let me outline a scenario. Lets say you're in a pool with goggles. Your eyes see both the top of the water, and part of the goggles are submerged under water (so you see the pool under water). We know that the two sub-and unsubmerged parts look different, and they both take up some space in the real world to get in your fov. I was saying what was the middle part, the intermediate transitioning parts size between the two phases?

 

Thanks

Yeah I get what you're saying (at least I think so, what you've typed is incredibly hard to follow in any sense at all). That's just something you'd measure. In simple terms, the "middle part" is a small layer of water molecules that forms the actual surface of the water. What would be the width? I don't know, off the top of my head. At minimum it would be the height of a water molecule - approximately 2.75 angstroms (or 0.275 nanometers).

 

You'd have to ask a physical chemist how "deep" the surface actually goes.