tdaxp

Interesting.

1. The curvature of the sphere creates an image distortion

2. Reflections are also reflected...and distorted...ad infinitum

3. You see a lot of black - though not entirely - because your eyes lack the ability to discriminate between all the overlaid, constantly shifting, reflected images

4. You jump through the sphere like Schrodinger's Cat and go get a beer.

Posted by: mark safranski | Saturday, August 20, 2005

I have no idea! But i say take a muscle relaxant and pass out and wake up to see your next bench kid who probably has the answer on his paper
regards
g

Posted by: girish | Saturday, August 20, 2005

Depends on some of the details.

You say that 'your side' of the sphere is perfectly reflective - is that the side behind you or in front of you?
If the entire interior of the sphere was perfectly reflective then - 'blinding' perhaps if less light would be absorbed by your body/clothing than the amount that somehow keeps entering (may get pretty hot in there).

If there is an absorbent side in front of you - then the color of that is what matters.

If the absorbent side is behind you that may be (part) of what you see. What you see depends upon the relative position of your eye balls to the origin of the sphere. If an eyeball were present at the origin then you would only see your eyeball without the presence of (much) light (near black). The origin of the light plays a role - but I am assuming a diffuse source.

You don't neccessarily see white because 'pure white' is the equal mixing of multiple frequencies. (The reflective surface is not amplifying any light.)

So when are you going to try this?

Posted by: Stuart Berman | Saturday, August 20, 2005

Like Stuart, I wondered how much light would be absorbed by your body and what the source of the light would be. If the source of light is exterior to the sphere, then the surface of the sphere may not be "perfectly reflective," or the sphere would have some break in it. For instance, if the entry point is singular, it would reveal to the interior observer greater light there at the interior surface than the rest of the surface, and a break in the reflections, assuming that the light which has entered is diffused in the process of reflection after having entered. Whether light is constantly being infused or a limited amount is once infused (and the entry point shut) would make a difference. If the source of the light is with you inside the sphere, whether it is a continuous source or a momentary source would make a difference in what you see.

I'm not sure we are capable of imagining "perfection," in any case. You mention a "perfect sphere," and I wonder if by "sphere" you mean only the substance which forms the reflective surface or a broader concept of "sphere": 1) we are not seeing the exterior surface, so we aren't considering the entire sphere if that substance is all that is meant, or 2) the "sphere" may include, in that term, all the interior space as well, so that it wouldn't be "perfect" since the interior observer limits that "perfection." To put it another way: a "perfect ball" of iron might be thought a "perfect sphere," but that ball would include the volume of that sphere, since we can't separate the "surface" from the volume, for lack of a dividing line. If the sphere is only that substance which makes the surface, in a "hollow ball" variety, we must consider the thickness of that substance and wonder how the idea of "perfect sphere" can be made from it: that substance as a whole is not, strictly speaking, spherical, since it has a width, or thickness, which is not spherical.

Without splitting hairs, my initial instinct for the fantastical situation would be this visualization: that the sphere itself would cease to appear to the observer, and the observer would find himself floating in what would otherwise appear to be infinite space, with only himself for companionship. (No stars, no planets, no awareness or concept of light or darkness....)

Posted by: Curtis Gale Weeks | Sunday, August 21, 2005

Stuart,

By the observer's side, I meant the interior -- though variations are interesting questions too ;)

Good point on the need to know the tangent from the oberser's eye to the curve of the sphere.

As for experimentation -- I have no idea! :)

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Sunday, August 21, 2005

Curtis,

I'm imagining that the lighting is ambient -- this is an option in many 3D renderers ("hacked" long ago in a previous life... ;) ) that simply means that all areas are equally bright -- visual radition is equally present everywhere.

Or does that break the thought experiment?

You are right that by 'sphere' I "only the substance which forms the reflective surface or a broader concept of "sphere"

I'm imaging that the "coating" on our side of the "sphere" is perfectly reflective, so its density or what is beyond it shouldn't matter.

Your hypothesis of sensual isolation is frightening. It made me remember my talk about reality and semantic internets (http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/05/23/zen_and_the_art_of_semantic_eurovision_networks.html). Are you saying that mentally the concept of "observation" would become meaningless?

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Sunday, August 21, 2005

Dan,

I meant that it might not be possible for us, outside the experiment, to conceptualize "perfect sphere" perfectly...thus hedging my bet later on.

I think the observer would not be in sensual isolation, since he would still feel, smell, taste, and possibly hear -- although, if he is the only thing inside the sphere, he'd experience his own corporeality via these senses, only. In fact, he'd probably also see his own body, if he looked at it. (As for hearing, I presume air is inside the sphere, in order for him to breathe. Come to think of it, I wonder what the echoes would be inside the sphere...if he screamed. Maybe for the experiment, we could assume that the surface of the sphere also absorbs all sound?)

As for the light...I tried imagining all the light rays reflecting at all possible angles and the cumulative angular effect, especially also because the reflections would blend in all possible ways. (Since it's an imaginary experiment, I imagined an imaginary observer...The body of a real observer would absorb some light, block some rays and reflections, so the cumulative effect would actually be different; plus, the angles at which the light reflects to the eye(s) would make a difference for a real observer, since there'd only be a limited set of angles. On the other hand, perhaps the limitation would not make the complexity simple enough to make a difference for a real human...)

I don't know if we can get beyond the vague term "ambient," since it doesn't take into account the movement of the light: the term actually presupposes that all the light, taken as a whole, doesn't move, so there aren't variations in the light, or photons collected together in a discernible pattern, for the observer to detect it or analyze it conceptually -- which, really, gets back to the "cumulative angles" comments above...

But I'm running out of time for now, so I'll have to leave the above quick comments as they are!

Posted by: Curtis Gale Weeks | Sunday, August 21, 2005

The Deeply Imponderable Sort of Question that Makes Grad School Grad School
Cecilia, Farrah, Texas Dave, and tdaxp need to know.

”Say you were floating in a perfect sphere. The lighting is ambient, the sphere is of reasonable diameter, and your side of the sphere is perfectly reflective. What do you see?”
You see what you always see: a changing wave of potential energy.

”1. Are you blinded because the light level keeps increasing and it is impossible for light to escape?”
No, you are blinded because the lightwaves come from all directions. The amount of lightwaves hitting the back area of your eyeball would be similar to the highbeams of an incoming automobile. Lightwaves are made up of potential energy. I don’t see an increase of potential energy, unless it happens as they break down your body mass.

”2. Do you see pure white, because color is adative?”
No, blind is blind, but color is a frequency. Would the light appear to be at the frequency of white light? Propably.

”3. Some superposition of different parts of yourself?”
No, unless the sphere was large enough that there were focal points in different spaces of the sphere. Kind of like the sun. Where it is and where it appears to be could be two different things. Is the suns light reflecting from some point in space and focused where it appears to us at?

”The obvious was to solve this would be with Lightwave or Blender... but a blog post is way cooler.”
The trouble with rendering programs is that they are too perfect for an imperfect world. Your conclusions would be limited to a perfect world. I think you guys should have gone to bed earlier than you did.

Posted by: Larry Dunbar | Friday, August 26, 2005