Re: [Phys-l] inversion goggles

[chuck britton <cvbritton@mac.com>]

Here's what can be expected at one month of age:

1 month
At birth your baby didn't know how to use his eyes in tandem, so they 
may have wandered randomly or even crossed now and then. This month 
or next, he'll be able to consistently focus both eyes and track a 
moving object. A rattle passed in front of his face will often 
transfix him as he explores this newfound ability. He may also enjoy 
playing eyes-to-eyes with you: With your face very close to his, move 
your head slowly from side to side, with your eyes and his eyes 
locked.

http://www.babycenter.com/0_developmental-milestones-sight_6508.bc
.
At 2:14 PM -0400 5/16/11, Stefan Jeglinski wrote:
>  >P.S. I'm still trying to figure out how our brain flips inverted images on
> > our retina so we see the world as upright. My eye doctor once told me that
> > this is initially not true for newborns -- that they literally see the
> > world inverted! Wow!
>
> This seems easily refuted? If a baby sees your legs pointing up and
> head down, and you make a motion toward your legs, then you should
> see the baby's eyes go up as it eagerly and happily follows your
> motion down. Etc. I'm picturing Feynmann asking this sort of
> question? Maybe it's a dumb question, but I'm happy to be dumb for a
> bit, in the interest of education.
>
> Google this question and see that the notion is strongly perpetuated
> and seems well-liked, especially by new parents, who don't think of
> their new babies as anything other than the most special thing ever
> invented. There seem to be very few (any?) sites that cite any
> science behind the notion. The notion also appears to claim that the
> effect is a newborn phenomenon only, and "corrects" within a couple
> of days. So if it were to be validated, it would have to have come
> from research done literally on newborns. I surmise that this is
> likely to have happened in a mostly anecdotal fashion, except maybe
> for (this is the closest I have been able to find anything I would
> come close to believing on this topic, and it still is written for
> lay people):
>
> http://www.opt.indiana.edu/people/faculty/candy/what_can_a_baby_see.html
>
> In large measure, they address the question by not considering it,
> which may say a lot.
>
>
> Stefan Jeglinski
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l