Actually, that "magic" part is reasonably well explained in optical physics.

Optical waves are dispersed in all directions from a single point source. When they encounter a medium of different refractive index such as the lens they bend towards a different direction in such a manner that they come to a focal point on the retina of the eye or the sensor in the camera.

In a pin-hole camera where there is no lens required, optical waves travel along straight lines. An image appears on the image plane wherever the plane is situated. There is no unique focal plane or focal distance.

Hence for the purpose of your inquiry, you can eliminate the lens and consider the case of a pin-hole camera which has a tiny aperture.

True, good points...

But in the case of multiple CCD’s in close proximity, there’s sufficient quantity of photons to activate n sensors that are there with essentially the same image, which is baffling...

 

This is starting sound like the old natural vs. nurture argument. Did we come by it naturally or did we learn it.



The answer is 42

Haha, yes... I’m always trying to probe where that line is.

 

Magical definitely being the operative word there!

The "magic" I'm trying to pinpoint is in how the lens is dependably placing the right information at the right sections of the retina or other sensor. The wave becomes individual digital components at some point, and those individual components fire in geometric relationship that dependably makes sense in forming an image.

Is the question about how the light is imagined onto a particular pixel on the chip (i.e., a question about optics), how the light that is imaged onto a particular pixel on the chip is converted to an electrical signal that can be exported off the chip (i.e., a question about solid state physics), or how the electrical signals from the pixels are exported off the chip (i.e., a question about mixed signal circuitry)?

 

Is the question about how the light is imagined onto a particular pixel on the chip (i.e., a question about optics), how the light that is imaged onto a particular pixel on the chip is converted to an electrical signal that can be exported off the chip (i.e., a question about solid state physics), or how the electrical signals from the pixels are exported off the chip (i.e., a question about mixed signal circuitry)?

First one...

In the case of sound, a single microphone picks up one additive wave which carries the information of all the waves in the room. To fit “all the waves” into a concentrated area, I thought this might be the case here where the lens is capturing or amalgamating a single aggregate wave, as does a microphone picking up a single sound wave. And then subsequently, this single wave is predictably fragmented (Fourier transformed) into a 2D dispersion pattern that permits 2D image formation with a 1-to-1 photon-to-cell actuation on the 2D plane. The information in the wave being transformed from a single indissociable waveform to a repeatable, reliable 2D geometric dispersion pattern representative of the filmed object(s) is the thrust of my inquiry... we have a countable set of waves being “flattened” into 1 wave by the lens, and then as MrChips said, the lens is doing some magical things there:

I.e., even if the waves travel in a straight line, to get them to correlate as photons directly from the filmed object’s characteristics to the specific grid elements that represent those characteristics is the $64,000 question, because Fourier transforming is a very sophisticated, step-wise, programmed, processing algorithm involving hardware-level frequency filters, and not just one. From my vantage point, if the lens is doing such, this infers refraction itself is somehow representing a real-time algorithmic process; but a fourier transforming algorithm has to be cognizant of the nature of the inputs, since it must do specific things at specific constituent frequencies to address components of the original signal to a “productive” level.

 

Strange question: Does anyone know, if one were to have the right tools to do so, could one make out a “mini image“ on the grid of a CMOS or CCD before it is digitized into system memory?

I would think it would depend on the reflectivity of the sensor. Too much reflection of the image to your eye, would mean less available to the sensor element. Reading the sensor would be a sure way. Point of focus of the human eye is driven by the complex black box of the brain.

 

We are back at your original sound question and the answer which you never did accept.
A single point microphone captures all sounds from multiple sources arriving at the microphone. Through temporal analysis of the information received the human ear can discern different sources, instruments, timbre, etc.

An optical sensor is different. A single pixel receives information of optical intensity from a single point source. It has information about light intensity (and perhaps wavelength) from a single point source (assuming that the image is properly focused on the sensor plane).

 

First one...

In the case of sound, a single microphone picks up one additive wave which carries the information of all the waves in the room. To fit “all the waves” into a concentrated area, I thought this might be the case here where the lens is capturing or amalgamating a single aggregate wave, as does a microphone picking up a single sound wave. And then subsequently, this single wave is predictably fragmented (Fourier transformed) into a 2D dispersion pattern that permits 2D image formation with a 1-to-1 photon-to-cell actuation on the 2D plane. The information in the wave being transformed from a single indissociable waveform to a repeatable, reliable 2D geometric dispersion pattern representative of the filmed object(s) is the thrust of my inquiry... we have a countable set of waves being “flattened” into 1 wave by the lens, and then as MrChips said, the lens is doing some magical things there:

I.e., even if the waves travel in a straight line, to get them to correlate as photons directly from the filmed object’s characteristics to the specific grid elements that represent those characteristics is the $64,000 question, because Fourier transforming is a very sophisticated, step-wise, programmed, processing algorithm involving hardware-level frequency filters, and not just one. From my vantage point, if the lens is doing such, this infers refraction itself is somehow representing a real-time algorithmic process; but a fourier transforming algorithm has to be cognizant of the nature of the inputs, since it must do specific things at specific constituent frequencies to address components of the original signal to a “productive” level.

Imagine you and I are standing in a room that has a mirror on the wall. We each stand off to the side of the mirror such that I can see you and you can see me. Now Bob comes into the room and stands directly in front of the mirror and takes a picture of it. When all three of us later look at that picture, we all see Bob, even though at the moment that Bob took the picture I was looking at that exact same spot on the wall and didn't see Bob, I saw you. Likewise, you saw me. How is that possible?

 

We are back at your original sound question and the answer which you never did accept.
A single point microphone captures all sounds from multiple sources arriving at the microphone. Through temporal analysis of the information received the human ear can discern different sources, instruments, timbre, etc.

I do actually accept the fourier transforming capacity of the ear/mind. It’s cannibalizing the superpositioned waves via filters, etc. (How it correlates those “constituent waves” to internalized 3D forms vs. the ones in space is another story entirely, and that’s a different “blackbox” question that I’m investigating.)

An optical sensor is different. A single pixel receives information of optical intensity from a single point source. It has information about light intensity (and perhaps wavelength) from a single point source (assuming that the image is properly focused on the sensor plane).

Exactly, this is different (and a similar, but different question for that reason), because in this case there is a kind of information processing happening at the lens level, vs. the mic‘s diaphragm. The lens is fourier-transforming, the mic isn’t.

 

Imagine you and I are standing in a room that has a mirror on the wall. We each stand off to the side of the mirror such that I can see you and you can see me. Now Bob comes into the room and stands directly in front of the mirror and takes a picture of it. When all three of us later look at that picture, we all see Bob, even though at the moment that Bob took the picture I was looking at that exact same spot on the wall and didn't see Bob, I saw you. Likewise, you saw me. How is that possible?

Are you asking me, or do you know and can explain?

 

Are you asking me, or do you know and can explain?

I'm asking if you are comfortable with that phenomenon.

Similarly, if there is a wall with a hole in it and two people in different positions look at that hole they will each see different things at the exact same time. How is it possible for light from object A to pass through the hole and onto observer A' and the light from object B to pass through the hold and onto observer B' at the same time?

How is that really any different than the notion that light from object A could pass through a lens and onto point A' on a piece of paper at the same time that light from object B could pass through the lens and onto a different point B' on that same piece of paper?

 

I'm asking if you are comfortable with that phenomenon.

Similarly, if there is a wall with a hole in it and two people in different positions look at that hole they will each see different things at the exact same time. How is it possible for light from object A to pass through the hole and onto observer A' and the light from object B to pass through the hold and onto observer B' at the same time?

How is that really any different than the notion that light from object A could pass through a lens and onto point A' on a piece of paper at the same time that light from object B could pass through the lens and onto a different point B' on that same piece of paper?

I’m comfortable in the sense that I understand the core point you’re raising, as it does speak to the deeper crux of the original question, which is in my investigation of the nature of light and the dimensional nature of information, and where the information concerning the objects is actually ”stored” to begin with (Because it could be said, to “represent the 3D object“ in non-dimensional waves, charges, and photons is different than knowing what it is as 1 3D thing — huge thread I had with Bogosort was on that topic). I take a modern-day (controversial) angle from Des Cartes/Leibniz on that and would say in the “substance of the mind” which has vast implications for where the continuous 3D information is stored concerning the physical objects, and light’s interaction with them in various contexts (because I see the brain as a non-dimensional information processor).

To say a lens or mirror is “fourier transforming“ is an incredible thing to consider, because both things are not considered “computational“ or “information processing” objects.

 

I'm asking if you are comfortable with that phenomenon.

Similarly, if there is a wall with a hole in it and two people in different positions look at that hole they will each see different things at the exact same time. How is it possible for light from object A to pass through the hole and onto observer A' and the light from object B to pass through the hold and onto observer B' at the same time?

How is that really any different than the notion that light from object A could pass through a lens and onto point A' on a piece of paper at the same time that light from object B could pass through the lens and onto a different point B' on that same piece of paper?

Does this problem have an existing name, or did you think of it? It’s brilliant... and helps to speak to the theory that the spatial component of information is pre-existent and “unlocked” in the being by light, context-specific, rather than directly conferred by it.

 

I'm not aware of any name for it, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were. The observation that two people can both look at a mirror at the same time and yet see different things is something that I realized, to much puzzlement and amazement, on my own back when I was pretty young (ten years old, give or take) without any prompting. I don't know what made me wonder about it -- possibly some cartoon that had characters interacting with a mirror in a way that I recognized was different that what I was used to and so it got me to thinking. I vaguely remember that it was revolutionary for me because, subconsciously, I had previously been thinking of a mirror as basically a picture that was always changing, but that I was assuming that everyone looking at the mirror at the same time always saw the same thing. The underlying explanation, which I wouldn't even hear about for another decade or so, was that, in most media, electromagnetic waves interact linearly and, as a consequence, can effectively pass through each other without affecting each other. It was a few more years before I learned that there are materials that are nonlinear and for which this is not true, or that the linearity of materials can be bounded such that, above a certain intensity level, they become nonlinear.

 

My theory is, all of the potential 3D and angular information for a given “scene” (any potential scene) is already in the mind. What you “see” is not a direct function of light, but other variables that determine exactly what to you “saw.” The fourier transform simply yields discretized waves. What those waves “mean” or spatially correlate to dimensionally is a different question, as those thought experiments corroborate.

Also, MrChips, just to clarify, this applies to the original question I had about the singular sound wave. ;—)

The data is stored as “wavelings” and the mind is able to “key in” on what 3D object correlates to a specific waveling. How does it know “what“ 3D element’s voice it’s listening to and why, or what waves correlate to what?

To that end, despite the appearance, I don’t believe the wave actually carries the constituent waves once the “layers are flattened.“ Waves are not “dumb terminals” in my estimation.

 

I'm not aware of any name for it, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were. The observation that two people can both look at a mirror at the same time and yet see different things is something that I realized, to much puzzlement and amazement, on my own back when I was pretty young (ten years old, give or take) without any prompting. I don't know what made me wonder about it -- possibly some cartoon that had characters interacting with a mirror in a way that I recognized was different that what I was used to and so it got me to thinking. I vaguely remember that it was revolutionary for me because, subconsciously, I had previously been thinking of a mirror as basically a picture that was always changing, but that I was assuming that everyone looking at the mirror at the same time always saw the same thing. The underlying explanation, which I wouldn't even hear about for another decade or so, was that, in most media, electromagnetic waves interact linearly and, as a consequence, can effectively pass through each other without affecting each other. It was a few more years before I learned that there are materials that are nonlinear and for which this is not true, or that the linearity of materials can be bounded such that, above a certain intensity level, they become nonlinear.

Right, but the photons are agnostic to the 3D data they’re transmitting, so the information has to exist internally in the consciousness domain.

P.s., 10 years old, that’s wild.

 

Also, MrChips, just to clarify, this applies to the original question I had about the singular sound wave. ;—)

Yes, I recognized that you were still struggling with the metaphysics of moving from information to perception while most of us have moved on.

 

It seems to me that the question that the TS has is about the mechanism of lenses affecting the direction of light rays. The actual physics is rather complex and so what most folks do is utilize formulas that describe how the magic works. The great thing about that is that it allows a whole lot to be accomplished with only understanding how the formulas are to be used.
To design a useful circuit I do not need to understand the specific physics of the resistors and capacitors to fully know how they will work in a circuit, I just need to understand the characteristics adequately. That is why I mentioned the magic of lenses.

 

Yes, I recognized that you were still struggling with the metaphysics of moving from information to perception while most of us have moved on.

Don't understand the dig. "Moved on from what" though? As if the question isn't legal tender, or we remotely truly understand the "black box" you mentioned earlier? It's perhaps not the ideal forum for such a question, but knowing the limitations and functioning of hardware is only found in a place like this...

 

Right, but the photons are agnostic to the 3D data they’re transmitting, so the information has to exist internally in the consciousness domain.

P.s., 10 years old, that’s wild.

So were does the "information" exist when I write out "2 dozen eggs" on a piece of paper and hand it to someone? It seems to me that you are confusing representation with interpretation.

 

My response, post #37, certainly was not intended to be critical, I was just pointing out that the actual physics is quite complex. It was about 6 weeks in my college physics course, 18 class sessions, going through it. That was back in 1968, so I don't have all the details of the physics fresh in my mind any more. There might be a better venue available with folks who work with all of that all the time. Another possibility is getting a used 300-level college physics text book and reading the explanations there. An obsolete text should still have the correct explanations about light and lenses.