why is it when we look into a mirror, the reflection is reversed,

File: 3d_axes.jpg (58KB, 368x402px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 368x402px

2nd pic

>>7652533
because our eyes are aligned horizontally, not vertically.

>>7652534
also your 3D axes do not form a direct trihedron

It's not reflected top/bottom OR left/right. It's reflected front to back. You think of it as horizontal because of how you move. (i.e., if I told you to go behind me, you would walk around horizontally instead of diving over my head.)

>>7652535
so wrong...
try closing one eye.
try looking into a mirror from a horizontal perspective.

plus that doesn't account for using a camera on a video camera mirror it has one 'eye' and is refelcted L-R not top-bottom

>>7652540
I don't see the problem here.
Top stays on top. Right stays on the right, left stays on the left.

File: untitled_2.jpg (59KB, 716x413px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 716x413px

No one is correct so far.
This may be interesting.
Gonna watch this one.

>>7652533
Are you... Ugh... It's because the side on the left is still being reflected to the left, but the top is still the top. Like... Just think for a second before you ask questions like that.

where are all the smartypants physicists, grace us with your presence and insight

>>7652550
but >>7652535 is correct.

If you lie on your side, then you find that y and z are inverted, not x.
It only depends on what axis your eyes are on.

>>7652550
>No one is correct so far.

see
>>7652537

>>7652577
>>7652537
write "4chan/sci" on paper or transparency film
take a pic of it, than take a pic of its reflection. compare side-by-side. see L-R switch, but not a depth switch, nor a top-bottom switch.

>>7652533
It has nothing to do with the mirror or our eyes, it has to do with how we interpret spacial,... space.

File: mirrir mirrir.png (30KB, 1273x572px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 1273x572px

>>7652585
if it's our interpretation, then why does it hold true through photo and video?

>>7652592

Why would it not?

>>7652582

No, you only see a depth switch. You interpret it as horizontal because you're imagining the paper rotated horizontally and it's not matching the image. But it ALSO doesn't match what it would look like rotated vertically.

File: IMG_175804003690.jpg (8KB, 395x395px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 395x395px

>>7652617
because it is not interpretation.
how you gonna answer a question by asking the question in the negative?
wow.


this question has been around for thousands of years. and there still no widely held answer, even among scientists.

>>7652625
>because it is not interpretation

Huh?>>7652625
>this question has been around for thousands of years. and there still no widely held answer, even among scientists.

Oh, I see. You're rusing us! So epic!

File: 553032930.jpg (5KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 259x194px

>>7652629
rusing, no.
having a meeting of minds, yes.
2015 and we still don't have this answer down pat.

File: mirrors.png (272KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 1920x1080px

>>7652592
because you are still doing the interpreting of the final picture or video.

Its not doing anything to the left-right, or up-down axis, its reversing the front-back axis.

Your mind does a rotation to compare it with the normal object and then you get the left - right flip, but if you try really hard to imagine it youll find you can also rotate it in the other way and get a picture thats flipped in the up-down direction.

made the pic real quick to help explain.

File: red.png (16KB, 1273x572px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 1273x572px

>>7652632
bro, you're setting the axes based on perception.
if all things are the same except the perception point/observer, we will still see the same issue. keep in mind the frame of reference.

>>7652639
are you clinically retarded?

serious question btw.

>>7652639
did you even read my post?


your experiment shows exactly what i said.

File: cats.jpg (10KB, 236x235px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 236x235px

>>7652533
Why is OP retarded?

>>7652644
>>7652643
come on genius people...
the fact that none of you have taken into account that we ASSUME mirrors are mounted VERTICALLY.

try this, even with all the other things being the same, mount your mirror on the floor or ceiling.

then top/bottom flips will happen.

drink more coffee before posting ;)

>>7652648
in other words:
a mirror can't reverse an image on the axis it is oriented to. a mirror is 2-D. so it can only reflect (and reverse) the axes that it has access to.
forward/back (so-called depth) and left-right when mounted on a flat vertical wall.

File: 1447063901330.gif (1003KB, 250x251px) Image search: [Google]

1003KB, 250x251px

>>7652645

WAIT

I remember reading that old mirrors actually did reflect upside down and it depends how the mirror itself is made

>>7652679

No.

>>7652679
thats only if they are parabolic, like a concave or spoon shape.
if early mirrors did this they were not flat

>>7652648
>>7652630
>>7652559
>>7652550
>>7652533
now I'm sure of it, /sci/ you are once again getting trolled.

>>7652533
I'm confused. Don't you mean "but only on the vertical axes". Plus, there are definitely mirrors that reflect along other axes

Why do i even come to this board.

>>7652580
Underrated post

File: Gold_Bars.jpg (34KB, 500x319px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 500x319px

Hijacking bcus i didn't think it's worthy of it's own thread.

Why doesn't gold react violently with the air/water?

>>7652533
The law of reflection

>>7653332
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=why+isn%27t+gold+reactive

>off by 1

>>7653378
Right, it's just because of how light reflects. Natalie's ear is closer to the end of the mirror than her nose, so the mirror reflects that and to do so it inverts the image.

Mirrors always reflect images as if you were kind of looking at yourself from behind, it's so weird.

>>7652537
This is correct.

Stand in front of a mirror and point to the right. Your reflection will point in the same direction.
Now point to the left, again same direction.

But if you point to the front, your reflection will point in the opposite direction.

>>7652533

Mirrors don't reverse images, they reflect them. We can't read text held up to a mirror precisely because the mirror *does not* reverse it.

Imagine holding a card with a word, facing the mirror. The first letter of the word is leftmost on the card when it's facing you, and so is rightmost when you flip it around to face the mirror. The mirror reflects things on the right back to your eyes still on the right, when to read it we would need them to be reversed and appear on the left.

>But what about Natalie Portman, anon? She looks reversed in OP's pic.

She looks reflected, not reversed. Real Natalie's face is toward us. Reflected Natalie's face is also toward us. There is no reversal going on here.

I feel like this question is connected to a confusion of terms or something.

>>7652533
Feynman did a terrific video on this. It's obvious the way he explains it.

>>7656952

Nu uh, I heard from OP that this is a scientific mystery.

>>7652533
Is this a fucking joke or are Americans this stupid?

>>7652533
They're not. Your right hand is still on the right, that's why the reflection of your right hand seems to touch your right hand if you reach out and touch a mirror. Similarly your forehead touches the reflection of your forehead and not the reflection of your foot. What's reversed is not left and right nor up and down, it's forward and backward.

File: feynman_video.jpg (22KB, 628x472px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 628x472px

>>7652533
>>7656952

Found it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tuxLY94LXw

Richard Feynman on Mirrors

>>7658033
WHAT KEEPS A TRAIN ON THE TRACK THOUGH?

>>7652645
That picture reminded me of this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uoM5kfZIQ0

Light curves to the left in normal refractive index materials. The photons bouncing off your body and being emitted by it fly towards the mirror, some are absorbed, and others do a left turn and head back towards your face.

Imagine the light as composed of a bunch of cars - there's a drivers side and a passenger's side. When the cars reach a wall, they turn around, and their drivers side is now reversed.

They don't curve downwards, or upwards - there can never be a y reversal. However, there are negative refractive index materials that bend light to the right - this removes the phenomenon you're describing if you combine it with a positive refractive index material.

>>7652533
The reflections are not reversed.

Raise your left hand, the same hand will raise. The issue rises only when you consider it another human being, it's not, it's you.

Like the post above, things on the right are on the right of the mirror and things on the left are on the left of the mirror. Things on the top are on the top of the mirror and things below are on the bottom of the mirror.

Now, think of looking someone face to face. There top is still up and feet still down but their left is supposed to be on your right.

It took me a minute but I understand the post about reflecting front to back. things in the mirror are facing the wrong way.

>>7652652
>forward/back (so-called depth) and left-right when mounted on a flat vertical wall.

Then why don't I see e.g. my nose going inwards into my face when I look in the mirror?

think about rays, traced from your eye toward the mirror.

if you look straight into the mirror, a ray goes from the eye in, back out at the same angle, and into your eye

if your eye tracks left, then a ray goes out angled left, hits the mirror, and goes further left until it hits a bit of your head to the left of your eye

same thing if you look up.

the thing you see when you look left is the thing that's to the left of your eye. the thing you see when you look down is the thing below your eye

there is no reversal.

>>7658088
The shape o' da wheels, buddah.

>>7658315
You do - but the rest of your face is also inverted in the same way. You'd only see your nose going inward if only your nose was inverted.

this fucking question...
when you look into the mirror, things aren't reversed, things are being reflected perfectly straight. only what you think the mirror should look like is reversed, because you basically imagine yourself taking a few steps foward and then turning by 180° horizontally. what you would then see is what you'd expect to see in the mirror, but because the mirror gives you the actual reflection you say its mirrored