Talk:Moon illusion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by the Moon WikiProject.
This project provides a central approach to Moon-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. |
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the priority scale. | |
|
This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
||
[edit] The moon illusion is currently UNEXPLAINED
THESE REMARKS REFER TO AN OLD (2005) VERSION. It has been extensively revised in 2008.
We need to rewrite the "cause" to reflect the current body of evidence. I don't have time right now, but people shouldn't be misled by an explanation of an unexplained phenomenon. There is no mention of this being a spectulation or otherwise. This is deceptive.
If I can find the time, I'll see if I can do a rewrite on the info to make the status of the info clearer. Mgm|(talk) 10:39, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
- I don't buy the google link at all. The article by Maurice Hershenson is listed in two of the four results. There's a much more scientific, and IMHO, better explanation already listed on this page. If you want to skip the technical aspects, just examine the 'big man/little man' pictures on the last page of the Micropsia site: http://facstaff.uww.edu/mccreadd/appendix2.htm Krupo 14:57, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
Also, change your google search and get 7400 pages that state the opposite: http://www.google.ca/search?num=100&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22moon+illusion%22+%22explained%22&btnG=Search&meta=
After looking through all those pages, I can't seem to find "the" answer. If we are going to say this illusion is "solved" once and for all, we need A) A citation in a peer reviewed journal (not just what one psycholigist says on his webpage (or even worse, The Straight Dope) or B) an established consensus among a large number of experts found on Google. I do think now that it is closer to being solved than not. Citing any one physicist or psychologist would be bad research however, we really need something more widely accepted. If someone writes that it's "solved" on here, it would be best if you provide a number of strong sources annotating each page to show a consensus.
There definitely isn't a consensus. I can cite The Columbus Dispatch, June 22, B7: Richard Pogge and Gerald Newsom, two Astronomy professors at OSU, have two different explainations. James Todd, a psychology professor in the field of visual perception at OSU, says, "We can explain a lot of illusions, but this one is a particularly tough one." They also quote several other people. Before stating this illusion as "explained," I would insure there is an consensus among experts, maybe several emails?
[edit] Non-possiblities
Just to clarify, things such as Diffraction of light also don't answer the question. Diffraction only changes it slightly, while what we see is a much bigger difference. Another possiblity proposed is that the Moon in comparison with smaller objects near the horizon makes it seem larger. 128.6.175.26 16:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What a mess this has become
First there is this: "This explanation is, of course, the apparent distance theory which now is rejected by modern vision researchers who have specifically researched the moon illusion. See below." (and yes, I wrote most of the paragraphs that that follows)
I think there are far better ways of doing this. One...I personally don't agree that the "experts" which rejected that hypothesis are any more credible than those who advocate it. Regardless...you should reorganize the page, and put that section into the appropriate subsection, rather than just saying "this is discredited, see below".
Then further on there is "for the latest research do a web search for "moon illusion." " and repeated "for details see link to "the moon illusion explained." " That sort of thing is exceptionally unprofessional looking in an encyclopedia.
I suggest this page be marked as "not conforming to quality standards" or whatever. What process do we need to go through to do that?
--Robbrown 05:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Field of view theory
I'm surprised this theory isn't mentioned. Everybody who has delved into photography knows about it.
The synopsis and premise is quite simple: When you look at an object on a uniform surface with little background clutter, your eyes make larger motions since your brain is able to process the little amount of information per degree. When you place the same object in a cluttered background (near the horizon you usually have multiple trees, houses, lights, as well as a lot of motion), your eyes don't make that much motion since the brain must process a lot more information per degree, thus your field of view narrows and you focus on objects in the center of the image.
This presents an ability to train the brain in overcoming the illusion. Once you stare long enough on the Moon, it should seem to have grown larger (if only for a short moment). Key to successfully doing this lies in being completely relaxed. If you get even a bit startled, you'll almost immediately lose the narrower field of view.
[edit] Comparison Photo
an example of comparison photos would really be good. ive been waiting for a 'big' moon for a while to snap a shot of it, but it hasnt happened yet.
although it may be that while the photos did show them to be the same size, that it would seem irrelevant since you can't see it 'big' to compare. Sahuagin 18:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Discovering the Illusion
I'm surprised that what (for me!) is the most compelling demonstration that this is an illusion is not mentioned. Namely, look at the Moon when it is near the horizon through a tube (like a toilet paper tube, or the tube used as a core for paper towels--or even through the space made by your hands and thumb) and suddenly it looks small again!
Also, concerning the explanation: "The problem is, of course, that our neural nets are not trained to see objects more than some 100 meters away." There is perhaps a citation for this "fact"? First, it seems to presuppose that the brain is organized in the form of neural nets; I'm not sure that is accepted (although maybe it is, and I'm just ignorant of it). Second, it seems to imply that someone's neural nets could be trained to "see" objects further away, and if this were done, the illusion would vanish, or at least diminish. (Or more easily tested, if someone had spent their life seeing only nearby things, and were then given glasses allowing them to see things further away, the illusion would be even more compelling than it is for those of us who have had good vision all our lives.) But third, it is not at all apparent what it means to _not_ be able "to see" objects more than some 100 meters away." Obviously we do see objects further away, the Moon being one of them. So what does "see" mean in this context?
Finally, since this is an illusion, I presume that you can't discern any smaller areas on the Moon when it is near the horizon than when it is high--that is, it would be no easier to see the large craters, or "bays" in the maria. I have tried unsuccessfully to tell whether this is true, nor have I ever seen any discussion. It would be illuminating (pardon the pun). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcswell (talk • contribs) 01:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Illusion?
I've never noticed the difference between rising and zenith moons before, but I have noticed the varying sizes of the moon many times. (Never thought about how high in the sky the moon was at the times, strangely enough..) And, well, I'm not sure if this is the same thing then, but the differences in size that I have noticed are definitively *not* an illusion, sometimes the difference can be as much as ten times! On some nights, the moon can be so small as to be nearly a tiny dot, but on others it can be larger than a plate. And when it's small, I can't discern any of the craters, but when it's large, they are all very visible. Also, allthough I haven't made a point of noticing the height of the moon, I have noticed that on the few times the moon has been particullary large, it has been consistently large all through the night, likewise when it comes to the small moons. On this page "http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/moon.tn.html#moonillusion" it mentions that "If you place your thumb and index finger a pencil width apart and hold it at arm's length, you will always be able to fit the moon between them no matter where it is." which is simply not true. Sometimes the moon has been as large as my hand when I've tried this. This page, while trying to explain the "illusion" even illustrates it very good with two photos: http://niquette.com/books/sophmag/moonill.htm While, yes, they are the same size on the photos, the topmost photo is the result of a zoom, unless the moon was large to begin with. And the one with the mountains? I rarely see such a large moon, even when it is on the horizon, so.... My question then is, is there a real effect of moon sizes not mentioned in this article, or is what I'm talking about the same thing as the "moon illusion"?
- NightRaven
-
- Just an update, I just came in, and the current moon is thrice as large as usual, and it is in the middle of the sky, nowhere near the horizon. Is this page a hoax?
-NightRaven —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.149.29.3 (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] This article confuses me
Just thought I'd mention that. It seems to be written like a (bad) academic paper, not an encyclopedia article. What is the illusion? Why does it happen? Did this have an impact on any events in the real world at any time? Mythologies, theories? Why is there enough geometry to make my eyes bleed? --99.236.163.79 (talk) 04:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, this is a very confusing article. It's very much below par compared to most other wikipedia articles. I (tried to) read this article and now know less about the moon illusion than I did before I read it! And I'm an astronomer! -- JSF, --35.8.153.13 (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] What on earth has happened to this article?
When I last looked here 18 months ago, this article was much better. It described the illusion and gave a few brief plausible explanations. Now the article is 5 times longer, is full of strange notation and strange explanations, and is far less encyclopedic. Is this a subtle form of vandalism? Occultations (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I totally aggree. It looks more like a conference paper than an encyclopedic entry. I think the article should be restored to what it was then. Tó campos (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Avargasm (talk) 21:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC) I agree with you both. Seems like someone has done a big self research. I am returning the article to the point where it was concise and had meaning and usefulness.
We must remember that web pages are generally not an acceptable source of citations for Wikipedia articles. Contributors: please take this into account: (from: What Wikipedia is not)
please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following:
1. Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etcetera. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites, and Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge.
[edit] Reply to "What has happened?"
NOTE added May 14, 2008. A revision of the long article you refer to was in progress on May 12 , to make it more user friendly. But this revising stopped because someone removed that "long" article and substituted for it an entry that was unsatisfactory.
However, a different user,(see the next entry in talk by 81.157.197.236) now is providing a well-written summary.
Here is a word of friendly advice to others who plan to comment on the moon illusion: First read, for instance, the excellent book, "The Mystery of the Moon Illusion" by Ross and Plug (2002). It will bring you up to date with modern visual science. Since 1985 there has been a radical change in how vision scientists describe and explain classic visual illusions, including the moon illusion. The terms, equations and diagrams of this new approach (paradigm) have appeared only in refereed journals, in two "moon illusion" books (1989, 2002) and in only two or three websites (including "The Moon Illusion Explained.")
This new approach emphasizes that the moon illusion for most people begins as an angular size illusion. This definition is accepted and emphasized in the Ross & Plug (2002) book, etc..
The (now removed) article you referred to was too long because it used seemingly "strange" terms, concepts, equations, and diagrams not yet offered elsewhere in Wikipedia. (Such as, perceived visual angle, perceived linear size, size-distance invariance, perceptual size-distance invariance, angular size contrast, linear size constancy, equidistance tendency, and oculomotor micropsia.)
Likewise, the Wikipedia entries for other classic "size" illusions (such as the Ponzo illusion and Convergence micropsia ) have not yet been revised to also describe them in terms of the new paradigm, and thereby relate them to the moon illusion.
It has been a giant step forward to show that the basic moon illusion (the visual angle illusion) is an example of the well-known relative angular size contrast illusions or else the illusons of oculomotor micropsia. But that merely redescribes it. The main task facing researchers is to explain why those two more basic illusions occur. Various theories currently are being considered. They are complicated and differ widely in the kind of brain activities they propose. These theories are not yet reviewed in Wikipedia.
The moon illusion will not be fully "explained" until an agreement is reached on those more basic theories.
tit ding unsigned comment added by Mccreadd (talk • contribs) 22:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Pruning too extreme
Fair enough, this article had become overblown and dauntingly complicated, but now it has been decimated to such an extent that lots of valuable information from earlier versions has been lost, and what's left has in some places become so sketchy as to be pretty much useless. As I get around to it, I will be re-adding some text from an earlier version. 81.157.197.236 (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC).
Avargasm (talk) 06:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Sorry if the pruning was too extreme, and thank you for re-adding the lost info. The article seems much better now IMHO, without the overwhelming details of this or that theory. I recommend to keep this style, and if a deep technical discussion is needed, I suggest to do it in a separate article for that theory alone.
[edit] Is relative size hypothesis a particular case of the apparent distance hipotesis?
The apparent distance hypothesis is the general explanation about "cues" that make us think that objects near the horizon are further away than others. In this scenario, it seems to me that the relative size hypothesis is only a special case of "cues", that is, small objects in moon's immediate visual environment give us a "cue" that the moon is at great distance. This "relative size cues" are even mentioned in the apparent distance hypothesis. Avargasm (talk) 06:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] No, it is a serious mistake to think the two theories are the same.
The obvious connection between distance cues and "relative sizes" has been exploited by all "relative size" moon illusion researchers at least since Restle's (1970) article in Science, which made it perfectly clear that the crucial variable is the relative perceived angular size, not the relative perceived linear size.
At least since 1962 the relative perceived angular size theory has been the best known alternative to the apparent distance theory which, as all researchers know, can explain a relative linear size illusion, but cannot logically explain the relative angular size illusion that most people have for the moon.
I echo the earlier request (May 14, by user Mccreadd) that contributors to this "TALK" section get familiar with the extensive published research on the moon illusion before they offer suggestions like that. The book by Ross and Plug (2002) reviews research up to 2001. Reviews of research since 2001 can be found in "The Moon Illusion Explained" (the only website Ross and Plug referred to.) (That website's Section II reviews the relative size theory and specifically mentions "The Distance-Cue Connection.") Ojosepa (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Expand the illusion
IMHO the sun can not randomly have offsetting distance and size differences from the moon, perfectly perhaps there is a larger illusion containing this one
Past cultures on earth have cosmologies that have this at their centers why does ours completely ignore it????? 32.139.49.166 (talk) 11:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
