This is one of the nicest explanations for one of the deepest mysteries of our modern (as in post Bronze Age) technological era: Why is it that when you look in a mirror, left and right are reversed, but not up and down?
The answer is simple: Neither is reversed. What is switched around is not one side vs. the other or top vs. bottom, but rather, which side of your face your nose is on. When you look in a mirror, you do not see the back of your head. The image in the mirror is the image of yourself with front and back reversed. All else follows from that.
Anyway, enjoy the show. Hat tip: clevedan....
Richard Feynman and the Looking glass:
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Around 470 people voted in yesterday's optics quiz. I continue to be amazed at the power of radio button polls to bring people into the blog.
As of early Friday morning, the correct answer is solidly in he lead-- 63% of respondants have correctly replied that the image remains intact, but is half…
Take another look at this picture of the Rokeby Venus from last week's post on mirrors in art:
Now, imagine you're actually in the room with Venus, as depicted in this painting. You suspend your astonishment long enough to conduct a quick test of the principle of how a flat mirror works. Consider…
The Rokeby Venus by Diego Velázquez is a good example of a very common illusion in many paintings:
Most viewers would say this picture depicts a woman viewing her own reflection in a mirror. But based on the orientation of the mirror, it's actually physically impossible for her to see her own…
The other day, I made a suggestion to one of my research students of an experiment to try. When I checked back a day later, she told me it hadn't worked, and I immediately realized that what I had told her to do was very stupid. As penance, then, I'll explain the underlying physics, which…
I love the way Feynman explained things. The QED lectures were just like that.
Thanks! I missed the response from the other post that linked to the video.
If there's a better explicator of science than Feynman I don't know who it would be; he was a pure gem, and any video interview with him is not to be missed.