Precision machined interlocking blocks - GIF

Precision machined interlocking blocks.

<video controls autoplay loop> <source src="https://diqn32j8nouaz.cloudfront.net/precision_machined_blocks_tk.mp4" type="video/mp4"> Your browser does not support the video tag. </video>


Previously:

https://www.homemadetools.net/forum/...544#post162576
https://www.homemadetools.net/forum/...357#post208381
https://www.homemadetools.net/forum/...001#post198948
https://www.homemadetools.net/forum/...6606#post83998
https://www.homemadetools.net/forum/...6406#post83605

I find this very interesting. There are many things at play in this being invisible. I thought that the limits of visual acuity were a bit better than what can be machined. But that may be a wrong conclusion. I dug up a rather good Wikipedia. Scroll down to this section if you want:

Other measures

"Normally, visual acuity refers to the ability to resolve two separated points or lines, but there are other measures of the ability of the visual system to discern spatial differences.

Vernier acuity measures the ability to align two line segments. Humans can do this with remarkable accuracy. This success is regarded as hyperacuity. Under optimal conditions of good illumination, high contrast, and long line segments, the limit to vernier acuity is about 8 arc seconds or 0.13 arc minutes, compared to about 0.6 arc minutes (6/4) for normal visual acuity or the 0.4 arc minute diameter of a foveal cone. Because the limit of vernier acuity is well below that imposed on regular visual acuity by the "retinal grain" or size of the foveal cones, it is thought to be a process of the visual cortex rather than the retina. Supporting this idea, vernier acuity seems to correspond very closely (and may have the same underlying mechanism) enabling one to discern very slight differences in the orientations of two lines, where orientation is known to be processed in the visual cortex.

The smallest detectable visual angle produced by a single fine dark line against a uniformly illuminated background is also much less than foveal cone size or regular visual acuity. In this case, under optimal conditions, the limit is about 0.5 arc seconds or only about 2% of the diameter of a foveal cone. This produces a contrast of about 1% with the illumination of surrounding cones. The mechanism of detection is the ability to detect such small differences in contrast or illumination, and does not depend on the angular width of the bar, which cannot be discerned. Thus as the line gets finer, it appears to get fainter but not thinner.

Stereoscopic acuity is the ability to detect differences in depth with the two eyes. For more complex targets, stereoacuity is similar to normal monocular visual acuity, or around 0.6–1.0 arc minutes, but for much simpler targets, such as vertical rods, may be as low as only 2 arc seconds. Although stereoacuity normally corresponds very well with monocular acuity, it may be very poor, or absent, even in subjects with normal monocular acuities. Such individuals typically have abnormal visual development when they are very young, such as an alternating strabismus, or eye turn, where both eyes rarely, or never, point in the same direction and therefore do not function together. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_acuity

Fascinating.

Given the conventional wisdom that the structure of the body was determined by natural selection, one has to wonder what our earliest ancestors were doing that so depended on such visual acuity that those that lacked it were "selected out", so that the genes governing it could survive until today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mklotz

Fascinating.

Given the conventional wisdom that the structure of the body was determined by natural selection, one has to wonder what our earliest ancestors were doing that so depended on such visual acuity that those that lacked it were "selected out", so that the genes governing it could survive until today.

---

The more one thinks about the conventional wisdom, the more holes get poked into it. Best not to think about in the first place. Theory's don't like to be questioned. They are only a question in the first place looking for validation.

The part about our being able to detect a single photon really is interesting.