Jump to content
Science Forums

Is there a finite number of different images we can possibly see?


Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, Omnifarious said:

No you did not answer it. You only pointed out the light spectrum extends beyond what our human eyes can perceive.

Indeed, and that answered your question

Quote

Are you saying that confirms there are only a finite number of images we can see? Because I can tell you it does not. Light is continuous and can have an infinite variation in it's wavelengths, no matter what the spectrum is limited to. And as a matter of fact I do know some of this stuff because I have been obsessing over it for years!

Amazing that after all this obsessing you have not yet been able to formulate your question properly.

The question is not if light has an infinite spectrum and can represent an infinite number of forms and colors. 

The question is if we can see an infinite spectrum and clearly we cannot. Therefore I answered your question. Care to rephrase it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Ok, I'll give it my last shot, being as there is no YES or NO answer. It is both KINDA and KINDA NOT. The eye has individual photoreceptors that are akin to pixels. There are 125 million of them

Your Question: “Is there a finite number of different images we can possibly see?”   You requested a Yes or No response and, in my opinion, the answer is No. In case you are interested

Light does not have a infinite number of frequencies you can see in the equation E=hf  that the frequency of light times the plank's constant is the energy and from that surmise that energy levels are

Posted Images

Omni;

(if you had a nickname)

eye:

The human eye as designed is fine for human activity, but is limited for specialized areas like astronomy or microscopy. We need augmentation from various tools. Eg. human vision observing a small patch of blackness in the night sky, but the Hubble telescope revealing multitudes of lights in that same patch. Even in those images the detail is amazing when considering the vast distances. The images must be manipulated since the human eye doesn't have the resolving power to detect the details.

Then there are predatory birds, falcon and eagle, that have acute vision, necessary for survival. We can't run as fast as a horse either, i.e. our abilities are limited, as in all life forms.

The pixel camera can repeatedly record anything that emits light since pixels can be erased. Its ability is restricted by amount of memory. These factors can also apply to human vision. I have never been aware of a normal person having a 'full' memory.

Pixels and biological cells are composite structures on the dimensional scale of atoms.

Photons (bits of light energy) are considered point-like, and interact with electrons, which are smaller than atoms. Thus photons will always be smaller than any pixel or cell. The articles you cite don't give you a complete explanation.

 

brain:

The brain is an image oriented organism. It primarily forms images from visual sensory input. It analyzes various aspects of images, form, color, spatial relations, etc. It also stores images for future reference. The brain contains a miniature representation of the outside world, which assists us in our daily lives.

Hallucinations are mental images. As such they are real, just confined to the brain, which is regulated by chemistry, a subset of physics.

 

afterlife:

Science is philosophy augmented with its verification tool, measurement.

Thus it cannot analyze things spiritual or intangible. That requires a move to religion.

Sometime in the past, human life forms were born into a world they knew nothing about. Through divine revelation, they were informed of their purpose, to populate and manage the earth.

(Those who object to this idea can meditate on the source of the genetic code that allowed their formation. It is only available from another human.)

They were given a choice, life in a paradise or death, and via their own free will, chose death. All humanity suffers from their choice.

The will of a supreme being will be successful, thus a means of restoration was provided. This will allow each individual to make that same choice for themselves.

Ec 9:5 states, For the living are conscious they will die,...but the dead are conscious of nothing at all.

Death is likened to sleep. Just as in sleep you awake with no knowledge of elapsed time. People revived from comas have no idea of elapsed time.If you can accept 'every time you fall asleep, you will wake up', you remove any anxiety. 

 

From the Bertrand Russell quote:

"the sense of being more than Man,"

This mindset (ego) is part of the problem, mankind wanting to play GOD but not knowing how. I've read and lived enough of the history of human thinking, and it's not good.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your Question: “Is there a finite number of different images we can possibly see?”

 

You requested a Yes or No response and, in my opinion, the answer is No.

In case you are interested in my reasoning, on which I based my opinion, then read further.

I don’t even need to bring different shades of colors into this, all I need to support my answer is the fact that the set of irregular polygons is infinitely large. I could also mention fractals, such as the Koch snowflake. I don’t think the human eye is limited in seeing any number of these shapes so theoretically it can see an infinite number of them; although it is always dodgy to speak of an infinite number of anything. How many is infinite anyway?

Now, if I also add in the possibly infinite spectrum of colors and shades we may be able to see, we will arrive at different numbers of infinite sets; the very thing that drove poor Georg Ferdinand Ludwig Philipp Cantor into deep depression and repeatedly confined to various sanatoria, where he died in 1918.

You may want to read up on his life since you seem to have some sort of obsession with the existence, or rather nonexistence, of an infinity or infinities, and admit to suffering depression as a result of that.

Perhaps you can find some solace in the fact that, although Cantor’s set theory was considered laughable during much of his lifetime, the Royal Society awarded him its Sylvester Medal, the highest honor it can confer for work in mathematics, and today Cantor's work is considered to have great mathematical, as well as philosophical, importance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, write4u said:

Indeed, and that answered your question

Amazing that after all this obsessing you have not yet been able to formulate your question properly.

The question is not if light has an infinite spectrum and can represent an infinite number of forms and colors. 

The question is if we can see an infinite spectrum and clearly we cannot. Therefore I answered your question. Care to rephrase it?

Light does not have a infinite number of frequencies you can see in the equation E=hf  that the frequency of light times the plank's constant is the energy and from that surmise that energy levels are h in difference thus not being infinitely small differences between packets of energy. The frequency also varies by a factor of h in magnitude thus there are not a infinite amount of colors as there is not a infinite number of frequencies, E/h = f, so if you take the energy of the packets divided by h then it gives the frequency between each level of energy the frequency varies by a factor of h which is pretty small however not infinite. This goes back to there is a smallest length and time in the universe being the Planck units, thus there is always a finite number of states in the universe for anything, even if you took the summation of all states of movement in the entire universe you would still receive a large but finite number as Planck Length / Planck Time = Speed of Light, thus there are a large but finite numbers of possible types of light too.

68eab98349ac83aa69b9a1ce79109d03.jpg

 

All this to say... Hell no, the brain or eye cannot pick out a infinite number of images because there is not a infinite amount of information contained within the universe. The Processing power of the human brain is only like a maximum of 40 petaflops anyways so if you tried to pass more than 40 petaflops of information into it, it would instantly not register parts of the information as you would get the brain version of a "Stack Overflow"(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_overflow) if you tried to process more information than that in your brain, which would probably cause a seizure or something. You are talking about three finite objects how in any way would you think 3 finite objects with finite parameters would ever be infinite?

Edited by VictorMedvil
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, VictorMedvil said:

The Processing power of the human brain is only like a maximum of 40 petaflops anyways so if you tried to pass more than 40 petaflops of information into it, it would instantly not register parts of the information as you would get the brain version of a "Stack Overflow"

I agree, I believe that's what I posted.

Quote

Ok, I'll give it my last shot, being as there is no YES or NO answer. It is both KINDA and KINDA NOT.

And that's what prompted me to comment on the OP title which really makes no sense and is probably why Omni has had no satisfactory answer to date.

I do have a question; does the electro-magnetic wave spectrum have a (near)  "infinite" range of frequencies?

Quote

To simplify things the EM spectrum divided into sections (such as radio, microwave, infrared, visible, ultraviolet, X-rays and gamma-rays). The EM spectrum is continuous (has no gaps) and infinite. Due to technological limitations, we can only use electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths between 10−14 m and 1015 m.

https://intl.siyavula.com/read/science/grade-10/electromagnetic-radiation/11-electromagnetic-radiation-03#

Therefore, humans are limited in what they can see (observe) of the universe. Apparently migrating birds can "see" the earth's magnetic fields and use them for navigation.

Edited by write4u
Link to post
Share on other sites

Omni;

[Check the images of Saturn on the NASA site, and notice how much detail there is, especially within the rings! There is no degrading of detail for the distance involved.

Notice the progressive increase in resolution of current TV displays, with photo quality pictures.]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 2/14/2021 at 4:57 PM, sluggo said:

Photons (bits of light energy) are considered point-like, and interact with electrons, which are smaller than atoms. Thus photons will always be smaller than any pixel or cell. The articles you cite don't give you a complete explanation.

 

True, photons are smaller then photoreceptors but only when they are sufficiently stimulated they send a signal to the brain. The nature of that signal is what I'm talking about.

21 hours ago, VictorMedvil said:

Light does not have a infinite number of frequencies you can see in the equation E=hf  that the frequency of light times the plank's constant is the energy and from that surmise that energy levels are h in difference thus not being infinitely small differences between packets of energy. The frequency also varies by a factor of h in magnitude thus there are not a infinite amount of colors as there is not a infinite number of frequencies, E/h = f, so if you take the energy of the packets divided by h then it gives the frequency between each level of energy the frequency varies by a factor of h which is pretty small however not infinite. This goes back to there is a smallest length and time in the universe being the Planck units, thus there is always a finite number of states in the universe for anything, even if you took the summation of all states of movement in the entire universe you would still receive a large but finite number as Planck Length / Planck Time = Speed of Light, thus there are a large but finite numbers of possible types of light too.

Actually I posted a question like that on this forum and several people said that spectrum in continuous. As have several other discussions I've found.

Does Quantum Mechanics Mean There Is A Finite Number Of Colours? - Physics and Mathematics - Science Forums

If you are saying the Planck length is a minimum length for everything, it is not. Planck is a unit of measurement like meters or inches, it too is divisible. 

22 hours ago, VictorMedvil said:

 

All this to say... Hell no, the brain or eye cannot pick out a infinite number of images because there is not a infinite amount of information contained within the universe. The Processing power of the human brain is only like a maximum of 40 petaflops anyways so if you tried to pass more than 40 petaflops of information into it, it would instantly not register parts of the information as you would get the brain version of a "Stack Overflow"(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_overflow) if you tried to process more information than that in your brain, which would probably cause a seizure or something. You are talking about three finite objects how in any way would you think 3 finite objects with finite parameters would ever be infinite?

I never ment to ask, could see them all at once? But rather, assuming an infinite number of images can be created, would it be possible for humans to properly perceive any one out of them? Or at some point would there be variations we could not perceive?

And you're statement "there is not a infinite amount of information contained within the universe" is not scientific fact either. Despite popular misconception, scientists do not agree on the shape or nature of the universe. Some say it's a globe, a cone, flat, infinite, finite, and one of many either in other dimensions or physically separate from ours. So you really shouldn't go around saying that like it's an established fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Omnifarious said:

 

True, photons are smaller then photoreceptors but only when they are sufficiently stimulated they send a signal to the brain. The nature of that signal is what I'm talking about.

Actually I posted a question like that on this forum and several people said that spectrum in continuous. As have several other discussions I've found.

Does Quantum Mechanics Mean There Is A Finite Number Of Colours? - Physics and Mathematics - Science Forums

If you are saying the Planck length is a minimum length for everything, it is not. Planck is a unit of measurement like meters or inches, it too is divisible. 

I never ment to ask, could see them all at once? But rather, assuming an infinite number of images can be created, would it be possible for humans to properly perceive any one out of them? Or at some point would there be variations we could not perceive?

And you're statement "there is not a infinite amount of information contained within the universe" is not scientific fact either. Despite popular misconception, scientists do not agree on the shape or nature of the universe. Some say it's a globe, a cone, flat, infinite, finite, and one of many either in other dimensions or physically separate from ours. So you really shouldn't go around saying that like it's an established fact.

Well actually a Planck Length is not divisible it is the size of a single point of space, it actually is the smallest you can get(https://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2013/today13-11-01_NutshellReadMore.html), I am not just making **** up. Secondly, with a processing power of 40 petaflops your brain cannot perceive a image larger than 40 petaflops, so there could never been a infinite amount of images you could see, you are always capped to below 40 petaflop images. Thirdly, if there is a smallest possible size for the universe and smallest amount of time being the planck units then the Universe and Multiverse could be very large however not infinite it is a simple matter of logic along with the electromagnetic spectrum could be very large however still has limits. Even if the Planck units are not the smallest possible size you are still going to run into a smallest possible size at some point. Infinity is a mathematical concept not a physical concept, nothing is infinite just very large or very small. Something being continuous like the electromagnetic spectrum is different than it being infinite. Continuous meaning not having any gaps in the spectrum like if wavelengths of 100 nm to 400 nm were just not there or something, is continuous, infinite would mean you could have a light wave with a greater amount of positive energy than the entire universe and even higher, which is not possible as a greater amount than all the positive energy in the entire universe as a single light particle is not possible thus it is not infinite, there is a limiting factor being positive energy in the entire system being the universe. Another way I know the universe is not infinite is there is a maximum amount of dark energy in the entire universe and the universe is finitely old being billions of years old and not infinitely old(https://astronomy.com/news/2020/03/is-the-universe-infinite and https://www.livescience.com/33129-total-energy-universe-zero.html).

 

Untitled.png

Just as this protein folding computer maybe powerful however it is far from infinite, it cannot and will not ever capture a infinite amount of states of biological machines(Proteins).

Untitled.png

 

Standards for hydrodynamic analysis

Protein M r aa seq S 20,w S max /S R s (nm) Source M r S-M
Ribonuclease A beef pancreas 14,044 2.0a 1.05a 1.64 HBC 13,791
Chymotrypsinogen A beef pancreas 25,665 2.6 1.21 2.09 HBC 22,849
Ovalbumin hen egg 42,910s 3.5 1.27 3.05 HBC 44,888
Albumin beef serum 69,322 4.6a 1.33 3.55 S-M, HBC 68,667
Aldolase rabbit muscle 157,368 7.3 1.45 4.81 HBC 147,650
Catalase beef liver 239,656 11.3 1.21 5.2 S-M 247,085
Apo-ferritin horse spleen 489,324 17.6 1.28 6.1 HBC 451,449
Thyroglobulin bovine 606,444 19 1.37 8.5 HBC 679,107
Fibrinogen, human 387,344 7.9 2.44 10.7 S-M 355,449

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3055910/

Edited by VictorMedvil
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read through this thread. I do understand the OP's pointed inquiry. The eye's photoreceptors. At a highly microscopic level photoreceptors are individual organic structures. And yes, there are billions of them, but since there are quadrillion of photons striking them, do the receptors catch all of the photons or do some of the photons land in between the photoreceptors causing a "pixelated" signal to the brain? The brain, in order to smooth things out, then might do something like "photoshop" the pixels to "fill in" what photons landed outside of the photoreceptors.

I'm only saying this to help define/refine the OP's frustration with people's responses. Because as far as I could tell the responses missed the substance OP's question. Be that as it may, I would like to help Omnifarious to have confidence that the incredibly small nature the eye's super microscopic photoreceptors is such that for all intents and purposes, in OUR real world, The photoreceptors capture MORE than enough photons for the brain to translate images into smooth landscapes. This should help any anxieties regarding art/color getting somehow missed by an observer.

I mean let's face it, How art comes across to any individual is highly subjective to begin with. But I dare say that if what you fear had even been an issue historically or currntly it has not affect art appreciation or critique. If you produce a piece of art then you simply have to go with that 99% of the population (assumption) will see what you see. But since no one is exactly the same, no everyone may see the same color tones? There comes a point when our visual macro world is in no way affected by our microscopic, nano-sized rods and cones. Technically, do our photoreceptors catch every photon that hits our eyes? No, but do they catch enough to allow the brain to smooth things out? Indeed they do. Otherwise the art world would be in shambles if it existed at all.

It isn't easy to think every possibly infinite shade of color in one's art isn't going to be perfectly transported into an observer's brain. And one could certainly overthink the matter to the point of quitting art creation, but I assure you, with around 120 million rods and 6 million cones in each eye sized at about 2-3 microns each, the Human eye won't miss much of anything. Certainly too small for any artist to paint or draw a point small enough that it wouldn't spill over onto adjacent rods or cones. Smoothing things out before the brain ever enters the picture. Hope this helps.

Answer: A finite number of images? Technically, yes. The ability of an artist to create something small enough to worry about something getting missed in between photoreceptors? Impossible.

I hope you don't mind if I don't address the afterlife issue 🙂    

Edited by Evolute
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Evolute said:

 

It isn't easy to think every possibly infinite shade of color in one's art isn't going to be perfectly transported into an observer's brain. And one could certainly overthink the matter to the point of quitting art creation, but I assure you, with around 120 million rods and 6 million cones in each eye sized at about 2-3 microns each, the Human eye won't miss much of anything. Certainly too small for any artist to paint or draw a point small enough that it wouldn't spill over onto adjacent rods or cones. Smoothing things out before the brain ever enters the picture. Hope this helps.

 

I appreciate what you tried to do here. But everything you wrote only strengthens my fears. To, me your basically saying it's true because you are saying the eye does work like I fear it does.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Omni;

One of the real world problems in vision is cataracts. A common deterioration of vision that occurs slowly over time, and goes unnoticed until it interferes with daily life. The good news, it's fixable with replacement lenses. I have had it done and am amazed at the improvement in quality of vision.

I agree with Evolute who is putting things in perspective, which is lacking in your question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Omnifarious said:

To, me your basically saying it's true because you are saying the eye does work like I fear it does.

No, I'm not basically saying that, I AM saying that. The dynamic you say you are fearing occurs on a scale the size of microns. Divide an inch into centimeters (2.54) now divide the centimeters into millimeters (250). Now take one of those millimeters and divide it into a one million micron segments along a straight line. That will equal about 500,000 rods or cones. Turn the line into a circle, and fill the circle with about 125 million MORE rods and cones. One red blood cell is approximately 10 microns. Can you see one with the naked eye ? Rods and cones are 1 quarter of that size, but even that small each one will catch millions of photons.

Look, fear can be sometimes debilitating. There's no question of that. So put things in perspective and do NOT allow ANYTHING to stop you from doing art. Look at a sample of impressionist art by Monet. Standing back the image makes sense. Up close? nnnnnnnnnot so much. If fear that the Human eye is missing an image or parts of an image then think of a way to adjust your approach to art as you deem fit or necessary in order to overcome your personal obstacle. You may have to walk out of the forest as far as you walked in, but you can do it.    

Edited by Evolute
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2021 at 2:34 AM, Omnifarious said:

 

 

If you are saying the Planck length is a minimum length for everything, it is not. Planck is a unit of measurement like meters or inches, it too is divisible. 

 

I agree. Even the source that Victor provided says: “the statement that the Planck length is the smallest possible length is on shaky ground” and only that “the Planck length is the best estimate we have for a minimum length”

According to Wikipedia on the subject of infinite divisibility:

“Physical space is often regarded as infinitely divisible: it is thought that any region in space, no matter how small, could be further split. Time is similarly considered as infinitely divisible.

However, the pioneering work of Max Planck (1858–1947) in the field of quantum physics suggests that there is, in fact, a minimum measurable distance (now called the Planck length, 1.616229(38)×10−35 metres) and therefore a minimum time interval (the amount of time which light takes to traverse that distance in a vacuum, 5.39116(13) × 10−44 seconds, known as the Planck time) smaller than which meaningful measurement is impossible”

However, there is no known way to actually measure that minimum measurable distance, and it has never been done. Consequently, there is no empirical evidence to support the claim that the Planck length is the smallest possible length! If we tried to measure a Planck length, it would be necessary to use at least one photon particle to create an interaction to have a measurement. The problem there is that even one photon in such a tiny space would have enough energy density to create a black hole from which no information can escape. Thus, no measurement of a Planck length is possible.

Of course, the Planck length can be calculated, but an infinite number of smaller lengths can also be calculated simply by dividing the Planck length an infinite number of times.

Here is an extremely well written and informative paper that is directly related to the subject matter in this thread that I think everyone who is interested in this subject will enjoy reading and discussing.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Evolute said:

Thank you for the correction, OceanBreeze. Never to old to learn something, and never to old to admit an error 🙂 

So are we talking about an electron vs. a photon? A photon being what gets emitted when an electron experiences a change in energy level?

That’s a great attitude to have. I also try my best to learn at least one new bit of information every day with varying degrees of success. If I didn’t say this before, welcome to Hypography Science Forum and I hope you have a good experience here.

 

 

To answer your question: we are not comparing an electron vs a photon. We are comparing two different proposed standards of measurement of the supposed smallest possible units of time and space. One standard is based on the Planck length and Planck time and the other is based on the time it takes for light to transit the diameter of particles such as the electron and proton, which is called the chronon.

But unlike the Planck time, the chronon is not a fixed time interval but depends on the particular particle being considered, as the particle charge and mass plays a role in determining the value of the chronon. I find it to be a strange system since the chronon will have different values for different particles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...