Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Golden_eyes, May 27, 2008.
We just happen to see them in a state of "rest".
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
We just happen to see them in a state of test.
We happen to see them with no external force .... This is may be a medical condition but I do not know for sure.
These are not "floters". When you stand to fast and get dizzy and see "stars" in your eyes.
This is the same vision.
However, we can see the moving dots all of the time.
wow this thread has been going for 13 years now..!
I've been seeing this same phenomena OP was describing for as long as I can remember, at first I thought it was some sort of background static or even the particle-antiparticle pairing of virtual particles..
BUT I'm like 90% sure it's Blue field entoptic phenomenon like was suggested on page 2 of the comments, check out the GIF on the wiki link below, it's literally what I see (NOT FLOATERS)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_field_entoptic_phenomenon <----- suss it!
For those that care: "The dots are white blood cells moving in the capillaries in front of the retina of the eye - The white blood cells, which are larger than red blood cells, but much rarer and do not absorb blue light, create gaps in the blood column, and these gaps appear as bright dots"
Thank-you OP for starting this thread
FYI it can also be called Scheerer's phenomenon & it's totally natural, most peeps brains just block it out!
"Scheerer's phenomenon can be easily distinguished from floaters (muscae volitantes). Scheerer's phenomenon consists of corpuscles of identical diameter and visual sharpness, of a simple dot or worm-like shape, brighter than the background. If the eye stops moving, the dots keep darting around. If the eye moves, the dots follow instantaneously, because they are contained in the retina. In contrast, floaters are specks or threads of variable diameter and variable visual sharpness, some of complex shape, darker than the background. If the eye stops moving, the floaters settle down. If the eye moves, the floaters follow sluggishly, because they are contained in the vitreous humor, which is subject to inertia."
- Blue field entoptic phenomenon - Wikipedia
I have the same thing. MGA
Our eyes are really not producing an accurate image of reality. Vision has all sorts of artifacts in it. Our brain filters them out because seeing them serves no useful purpose, and can in fact, jeopardize our ability to survive (back when we were hunted by predators).
What you are seeing is not real - it is an artifact of your visual mechanisms.
I take and agree with your meaning, but I think it's more accurate to say "Our brains are really not producing an accurate interpretation of reality."
Our eyes (and associated neurons) capture EM wavelengths ~400-700 nm and transmit them to the brain without prejudice or bias. What our brains do with that information is another story.
Is that strictly true? I was under the impression that the cones sample radiation with varying degrees of sensitivity over 3 different but overlapping ranges, that cover what we call the visible spectrum. Hence the signal from eye to the brain is a mix of 3 signals of varying strength that have to be interpreted, rather than a faithful transmission of frequency information as such.
I thought so, but if not I’ll wait to be corrected, and would be happy to be so.
We have photoreceptor cells that detect specific ranges (colours) within the visible spectrum, rather than being able to detect the whole ROYGBIV range. I vaguely recall something called the “three-cone theory”, or similar. We have “green cones” and “red cones” (ie. photoreceptors). So, red light entering the eye would activate the red cones, green light would activate green cones – our brain interprets this as "yellow".
Something like that?
Our eyes are mechanical objects with limited resolution and, even before being further processed in an interpretation stage, our input is limited to that necessarily granulated and noisy image of what's out there.
Our brains are good at filtering it out, but it is possible to consciously concentrate on it without filtering it.
That is no more true for our eyes than it is for a camera. Our eyes have a pixelated and granulated image of the world too.
OK I've found the picture I had in mind:
As I understand this graph, the 3 types of cone will all be activated to varying degrees by a particular wavelength and the single shade of colour we perceive is the result of how the brain merges the 3 signals.
This also explains (if I recall it correctly) how it is that we can "mix" red and green lights and see the result as yellow, even though there is no actual frequency corresponding to yellow light present at all!
The human eye has a resolution >500 megapixels and a dynamic range >20 stops. I’m guessing that’s significantly better than the best camera on the market. But I totally take your point that the brain filters out most of the information that the eyes pass onto it.
Interesting, thanks. Yes, this is what I was getting at when mentioning our brain’s interpretation and processing of visual information. Our brains tell us we’re seeing things that are not actually detected by our eyes! When you add in the vagaries and fallibility of memory, we reach the conclusion that we’re living in a dream world where we cannot trust our own brains to fully distinguish fantasy from reality. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes, but that doesn't say anything about its fidelity within those constraints.
I could show you a photo image that has 500Mpx and a brightness (from 0-255), and yet it could just look like noise.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Not to forget fps and how we perceive that when watching/playing videogames.
I personally find the good old 24 fps of yore very unsmooth to look at.
60hz is ok, but I prefer 144hz and up.
Think I read an article a few years ago where they mentioned that females can distinguish between nuances in colour better than males.
But none of us can compete with birds or cephalopods.
Our optical retention is 1/10th of a second.
Tetrachromats can, and they are mostly female.
Agreed. Though what I was getting at is I'm not sure I would describe this rather peculiar and indirect method of capturing frequency information as one without prejudice or bias, exactly. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Separate names with a comma.