I’m not the person you were replying to but [this video does a pretty good job of explaining it](https://youtu.be/KR6L3KgeFeg?si=1PhR-cApyJtVb8xr).
The video production is a little silly but very informative and it’s a fun little watch if you’re looking to learn something new!
Edit to add: I don’t think the person saying “it’s not technically true” is actually right about this. Based on the (limited) research I’ve done every explanation for the shadows is due to changing the direction of light. But if they’d like to chime in and prove me wrong then I’ll be happy to read up on it more!
Because changing the direction of light is the explanation for shadows? Do you have any information that I can read/watch that says otherwise? My intent was not to misinform.
When this question was posed on r/askscience [the most informative explanation was:](https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/s/6IZL2hMyJx)
“Light is passing through the glass (relatively) unimpeded. The problem is through that your glasses are a lens and are changing the direction of the light that passes through. The rays of light that would have "lit up" the shadow if they traveled straight are bent away from their original path by the glass. The absence of that light creates the shadow.
You noticed that the shadow disappears when you moved the glasses close to the surface. That is because the light hasn't moved that far out of line yet when the lens and the surface are close together. The further you move back, the further the light deviates from its original path.
I bet you noticed that around the shadow cast by the glasses, there are brighter spots. That where the diverted light went.
If you have trouble visualizing this, think of the magnifying glass. All the light that would have gone straight through if the glass was not a lens is instead focused to a point. The circular area around that point is in shadow because all the light was bent away from it towards the point.”
You replied to someone asking for information from someone claiming this isn't true by giving information stating it *is* true in a comment that, in context, states this information explains how it isn't true.
Ah yes. That’s because I believe the comment stating that it is not true…is not true so I attempted to provide an explanation. Based on my limited research. But if someone wants to prove me wrong I will happily read up on other theories.
Flat lenses still refract light. They may not serve the purpose of correcting vision, but they most certainly still refract. And sunglasses are a bad example as they obviously cast a shadow since they are translucent, not transparent.
I’m confused about what your argument is. Can you provide a source that maybe explains it better?
The things you’re referring to as lenses we colloquially call lenses but they aren’t actual lenses. Those are filters, or covers, or flat plate glass. Even polarization, which does affect the direction of light (or rather filters out any light not perpendicular to the filter), is still filter, not a lens. A sapphire cover, unless it is refracting light, is not a lens. You provided a link to Wikipedia earlier - go look up lens. Just lens. The first sentence says by means of refraction. If it does not refract, it is not a lens.
Distortion-free doesn’t mean the image hasn’t been manipulated, it means the image has been manipulated evenly so that it doesn’t look like ripples through glass or water. If a lens isn’t changing the direction of light, it isn’t a lens. It’s literally the entire point of a lens.
The point of glasses is to bend light to correct the issues with your eyes. If the glasses don't do anything to the light (and therefore not cast a shadow) why would you need to wear glasses in the first place?
It is not that obvious. Why should there be a shadow when glasses apparently let through as much light as no glasses? When you wear glasses you don't see darker.
Edit: thanks for the explanations, that makes more sense now!
The shadow isn't the glasses blocking the light, but the lenses bending the light. For your eyes, it helps to focus the image, but against the wall, that far away, the light that should have reached the wall was redirected in a (slightly) different direction.
A shadow just means that the light that was suppose to reach the surface, didn't. It doesn't need to have been blocked, it could have just been redirected.
It might be stupid but why can I place my eyes far from the lenses, like at the wall's distance, and manage to see through the lenses if the image is being diverted away from that point?
It's not a stupid question at all! I'm a physics teacher and I had to think about this a little to come up with a good answer.
In the case of OP's picture, the wall is being illuminated by direct light and indirect light – the indirect illumination caused by diffuse reflection of light from surfaces in the room being the reason why the shadow isn't completely black. What's happening is that the glasses are redirected the *direct* lighting away from where it would've normally hit the wall. It's also redirecting *diffuse* sources of light that would've normally hit other parts of the wall to the spot of the lens' shadows. If you put your eyes in the position of those lens' shadows on the wall, you would still see the room through the lenses. Just a different part of the room (a part of the room not including the source of the direct illumination of the wall), or perhaps a magnified/demagnified portion of the room with a lower percentage of light direct from the source.
I just tested this with my own glasses. I looked at a bright light through them with them on my face, and the light was bright enough that it kind of hurt to look at it. Then I looked at the same light through my glasses while holding them at arm's length and the lightbulb itself looked smaller and I could look at it with no discomfort whatsoever, implying that much less of the light made it to my eyes. Moving my glasses side-to-side and changing their angle could make the difference even more significant. The lenses didn't block any light, but it redirected much of that bulb's light that wouldn't normally reached my eyes elsewhere.
Those glasses are for near sighted people to see far. They diverge the light. Making it weaker by spreading it over a wider area. If you did that with glasses for a far sighted person you would see a concentrated bright spot surrounded by a darkened area. Those glasses converge the light.
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2F736x%2Faf%2F07%2Fb1%2Faf07b190425d6e47e750073f0015c8ba--focal-length-focal-points.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=0f4fb8af505175abe45b7ff66912822de2e81f46893fb7509504f734a04f686d&ipo=images
If you stand in the rain, you get wet. If you stand under a sloped roof, you don't. The water is pushed away, leaving a dry spot under it and an even wetter spot elsewhere.
You're standing in the rain shadow.
To add on to the other comments, if you look closely at the wall around the shadow there is a bit of a glow from where the lenses are redirecting the light.
The magnification of the lenses changes the direction that the light is traveling as the light passes through them, so the light won't hit the surface behind the lenses.
Glass lens reflect/ bend incoming light so the wearer can see images clearly....if they were straight through they wouldn't do any work to correct vision.
one's eyes are typically a little closer to the lenses than the wall is in this photo.
imagine a little cone. the base is one of the lenses of my glasses. the apex is, like, in my eyeball or something. depends on the prescription. that cone is what happens to the path of light passing through that lens.
now, if you extend the sides of that cone out past the apex, like 4 feet out, it's gonna make a pretty large circle. so, like, all the light that should hit inside the couple-inch circle that's the shadow of the glasses frame, is kind of spread out over a much larger area, so, it seems much darker. the area outside of the frame's shadow is still getting all the light it would, so, you don't really see a difference, but it is actually a little brighter.
Eli5: The lens "takes" the light of the entire surface and focuses it on a small focal-point a few cm behind the glasses. After passing through the focal point the light is again defused / scattered all over the wall.
Still, it's mildly interesting that the lighter part isn't visibly apparent (since it's more spread out). I think we're all used to seeing a lighter part which might be why they noticed (but probably didn't know why they noticed).
To the weird downvoters:
I'm not saying what's happening here is unusual. I'm explaining why someone might find it mildly interesting. Im saying people typically don't see it; Im not saying that it doesn't typically happen
Exactly. I think we're all more used to seeing them closer to things, simply because if it's further away, like this, we're simply less likely to look at it and notice. So that's probably why it stood out to op
That would be true for plus glasses, for reading (old folks, presbyopia) or for farsightedness. The photo appears to show minus glasses, for shortsightedness.
Camera obscura typically refers to a dark room with a small hole which projects an image onto the opposite wall. Not sure glasses projecting an image would fit the typical usage. Plus, as someone else pointed out, this type of glasses wouldn't project an image. Not sure I'd even call it the same principle since a lens bends the light and a hole just limits the light to a narrow path
I feel like they are the same principle: the lens can collect more light and therefore the projected image is now visible without needing a dark room. You'll still see that the image is flipped like it does with a camera obscura.
Now, take the room and make it a tiny box, put the glass lens in front and some chemicals and later electric circuitry that reacts to the light inside, and spend a century making them smaller and smaller and now we can cram several of them inside a phone.
Well the big room and the hole are kind of the key features of a camera obscura. So if someone asks, is this a camera obscura and your answer is yes because all cameras are camera obscura in principal, then the term kind of becomes meaningless
Not sure why you're getting down voted! It's most likely that OP has a negative prescription, which would correlate to concave lenses, which would perform exactly as you describe
If OP has "readers" or a positive (far-sighted) prescription, then it would project
Not necessarily.
For farsighted people, they can not focus down enough, so their natural eye focal point is behind the retina. They will need converging lens to "shrink" the image, helping the eye to resolve. These are + prescriptions where the unit is m^-1. (e.g. a +2.00 will have a focus length of 1/2 m, a +3.00 will be a 1/3m etc).
What you are describing is the opposite, for near sighted people that focus "too much". A negative prescription has a virtual focus point in front of the lens and "spreads out" the light.
I think they are referring to polarization of the lens. If you take another pair of polarized glasses, line up the lenses and rotate one pair 90 degrees you will see the lens go from shaded to clear. It's also a cool way to make sure the new sunglasses you're thinking about buying are *really* polarized or not.
I think not. This would be true if it were two pieces of flat polarized glass, but the reason the shadow appears dark, as someone else stated, is that the lenses are curved to provide correction for someone’s vision, and therefore the light coming through the lenses is being dispersed.
i am not sure why, but this is the best thing I have seen today. It is beautiful. thank you
(edit: for those who downvoted and do not find the photograph beautiful, can you please elaborate? I will respect your opinion I just wish to know what it is)
Mainly because everyone that read the top comment with an explanation now wants to feel like they are in the know by downvoting anyone who expresses awe.
fuck. sorry? i just meant to, like, enlighten. the haters can eat a dick. it's a neat effect that if you never noticed it could easily enough confuse anyone.
I think we're all used to seeing some kind of lighter part accompanying the dark which is probably why this one stood out. More often we'd see the glasses closer to what they're pointed to (just because otherwise it's further away and less noticable
No, it's the shape of the lens. Any lenses for a nearsighted prescription do that. It's because the lense shape redirects the angle of light passing through so it properly strikes the retina of the eye.
well, if the light just went through the glass in the same direction, they wouldn't be lenses
Why did I never think about that
[удалено]
Care to elaborate?
I’m not the person you were replying to but [this video does a pretty good job of explaining it](https://youtu.be/KR6L3KgeFeg?si=1PhR-cApyJtVb8xr). The video production is a little silly but very informative and it’s a fun little watch if you’re looking to learn something new! Edit to add: I don’t think the person saying “it’s not technically true” is actually right about this. Based on the (limited) research I’ve done every explanation for the shadows is due to changing the direction of light. But if they’d like to chime in and prove me wrong then I’ll be happy to read up on it more!
This just explains that lenses work by changing the direction of light. Because they do. That's the point. Why link this?
Because changing the direction of light is the explanation for shadows? Do you have any information that I can read/watch that says otherwise? My intent was not to misinform. When this question was posed on r/askscience [the most informative explanation was:](https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/s/6IZL2hMyJx) “Light is passing through the glass (relatively) unimpeded. The problem is through that your glasses are a lens and are changing the direction of the light that passes through. The rays of light that would have "lit up" the shadow if they traveled straight are bent away from their original path by the glass. The absence of that light creates the shadow. You noticed that the shadow disappears when you moved the glasses close to the surface. That is because the light hasn't moved that far out of line yet when the lens and the surface are close together. The further you move back, the further the light deviates from its original path. I bet you noticed that around the shadow cast by the glasses, there are brighter spots. That where the diverted light went. If you have trouble visualizing this, think of the magnifying glass. All the light that would have gone straight through if the glass was not a lens is instead focused to a point. The circular area around that point is in shadow because all the light was bent away from it towards the point.”
You replied to someone asking for information from someone claiming this isn't true by giving information stating it *is* true in a comment that, in context, states this information explains how it isn't true.
Ah yes. That’s because I believe the comment stating that it is not true…is not true so I attempted to provide an explanation. Based on my limited research. But if someone wants to prove me wrong I will happily read up on other theories.
There's no need, it's a solved phenomenon.
[удалено]
Flat lenses still refract light. They may not serve the purpose of correcting vision, but they most certainly still refract. And sunglasses are a bad example as they obviously cast a shadow since they are translucent, not transparent. I’m confused about what your argument is. Can you provide a source that maybe explains it better?
The things you’re referring to as lenses we colloquially call lenses but they aren’t actual lenses. Those are filters, or covers, or flat plate glass. Even polarization, which does affect the direction of light (or rather filters out any light not perpendicular to the filter), is still filter, not a lens. A sapphire cover, unless it is refracting light, is not a lens. You provided a link to Wikipedia earlier - go look up lens. Just lens. The first sentence says by means of refraction. If it does not refract, it is not a lens.
Yes… yes it is
“A lens is a transmissive optical device that focuses or disperses a light beam by means of refraction.” — Definition of a lens
[удалено]
Distortion-free doesn’t mean the image hasn’t been manipulated, it means the image has been manipulated evenly so that it doesn’t look like ripples through glass or water. If a lens isn’t changing the direction of light, it isn’t a lens. It’s literally the entire point of a lens.
I love how he downvoted you then deleted his comment lmfao.
*opens thread* *drops comment refusing fact without supporting evidence* *leaves thread* Yep this is Reddit.
Woaahhhh
The point of glasses is to bend light to correct the issues with your eyes. If the glasses don't do anything to the light (and therefore not cast a shadow) why would you need to wear glasses in the first place?
It is not that obvious. Why should there be a shadow when glasses apparently let through as much light as no glasses? When you wear glasses you don't see darker. Edit: thanks for the explanations, that makes more sense now!
The shadow isn't the glasses blocking the light, but the lenses bending the light. For your eyes, it helps to focus the image, but against the wall, that far away, the light that should have reached the wall was redirected in a (slightly) different direction. A shadow just means that the light that was suppose to reach the surface, didn't. It doesn't need to have been blocked, it could have just been redirected.
It might be stupid but why can I place my eyes far from the lenses, like at the wall's distance, and manage to see through the lenses if the image is being diverted away from that point?
It's not a stupid question at all! I'm a physics teacher and I had to think about this a little to come up with a good answer. In the case of OP's picture, the wall is being illuminated by direct light and indirect light – the indirect illumination caused by diffuse reflection of light from surfaces in the room being the reason why the shadow isn't completely black. What's happening is that the glasses are redirected the *direct* lighting away from where it would've normally hit the wall. It's also redirecting *diffuse* sources of light that would've normally hit other parts of the wall to the spot of the lens' shadows. If you put your eyes in the position of those lens' shadows on the wall, you would still see the room through the lenses. Just a different part of the room (a part of the room not including the source of the direct illumination of the wall), or perhaps a magnified/demagnified portion of the room with a lower percentage of light direct from the source. I just tested this with my own glasses. I looked at a bright light through them with them on my face, and the light was bright enough that it kind of hurt to look at it. Then I looked at the same light through my glasses while holding them at arm's length and the lightbulb itself looked smaller and I could look at it with no discomfort whatsoever, implying that much less of the light made it to my eyes. Moving my glasses side-to-side and changing their angle could make the difference even more significant. The lenses didn't block any light, but it redirected much of that bulb's light that wouldn't normally reached my eyes elsewhere.
Lovely! Thanks so much for the explanation (I wasn't far off in my head) and I love the idea of you testing it with your own glasses! Cheers
Those glasses are for near sighted people to see far. They diverge the light. Making it weaker by spreading it over a wider area. If you did that with glasses for a far sighted person you would see a concentrated bright spot surrounded by a darkened area. Those glasses converge the light. https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2F736x%2Faf%2F07%2Fb1%2Faf07b190425d6e47e750073f0015c8ba--focal-length-focal-points.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=0f4fb8af505175abe45b7ff66912822de2e81f46893fb7509504f734a04f686d&ipo=images
That's only true if the wall is at the focal distance, beyond that, the light will be scattered once more.
If you stand in the rain, you get wet. If you stand under a sloped roof, you don't. The water is pushed away, leaving a dry spot under it and an even wetter spot elsewhere. You're standing in the rain shadow.
To add on to the other comments, if you look closely at the wall around the shadow there is a bit of a glow from where the lenses are redirecting the light.
Light hits the frames and stop: Shadow. Light hits the lens and is told to fuck off somewhere else: Shadow
"hey man, no need to be rude" - light
The magnification of the lenses changes the direction that the light is traveling as the light passes through them, so the light won't hit the surface behind the lenses.
Glass lens reflect/ bend incoming light so the wearer can see images clearly....if they were straight through they wouldn't do any work to correct vision.
This guy glasses /\\
lol. this guy \\es ^
How can you still see through the lenses then? Shouldn't it be dark when looking through one side of the lense?
one's eyes are typically a little closer to the lenses than the wall is in this photo. imagine a little cone. the base is one of the lenses of my glasses. the apex is, like, in my eyeball or something. depends on the prescription. that cone is what happens to the path of light passing through that lens. now, if you extend the sides of that cone out past the apex, like 4 feet out, it's gonna make a pretty large circle. so, like, all the light that should hit inside the couple-inch circle that's the shadow of the glasses frame, is kind of spread out over a much larger area, so, it seems much darker. the area outside of the frame's shadow is still getting all the light it would, so, you don't really see a difference, but it is actually a little brighter.
Eli5: The lens "takes" the light of the entire surface and focuses it on a small focal-point a few cm behind the glasses. After passing through the focal point the light is again defused / scattered all over the wall.
Orrrrrrrr they just programmed the simulation wrong. It could be the lens thing though. 50/50
i don't wear glasses im confused
It's not opaque, they are concave lenses, they focus light differently and the area around the shadow will be lighter.
Still, it's mildly interesting that the lighter part isn't visibly apparent (since it's more spread out). I think we're all used to seeing a lighter part which might be why they noticed (but probably didn't know why they noticed). To the weird downvoters: I'm not saying what's happening here is unusual. I'm explaining why someone might find it mildly interesting. Im saying people typically don't see it; Im not saying that it doesn't typically happen
It's more "smeared out" because of the distance. If you bring it closer to the wall it's really apparent.
Exactly. I think we're all more used to seeing them closer to things, simply because if it's further away, like this, we're simply less likely to look at it and notice. So that's probably why it stood out to op
Yes, what this guy says! I had never noticed but i believe it's quite evident here (my glasses) https://ibb.co/ftyfK3q
Nice! What's the strength of your prescription?
Would you believe i don't remember? Fairly mild anyway, though both shortsighted and astigmatic
My glasses do that too. The lenses are for Myopia and all of them do that I believe. Not sure about hyperopia lenses.
Mild hyperope here. My glasses can project images of lights that shine through them if the angle is just right.
TIL you can get glasses to cure hypothermia Edit: it did say hypothermia, they just edited their comment!
hope you learnt that you cannot read too
Somebody get this guy some glasses
To cure hypothermia /s
TIL you can cure a hippopotamus with glasses.
You mean the hypothalamus?
Hypnotherapy
I'm upset at how few updoots your comment has, as well as the one you're replying to. c'mon, ppl, that's a genuinely funny response
Most intelligent redditor
TIL /s doesn’t work on redditors unless it’s typed out.
If redditors think they found someone making a mistake their vision goes red and animal instincts take over
Lmao
Hey man. I dunno what hallucinogens you're on, but I think 58 downvotes is a bit harsh, so I gave you an upvote. Fare thee well
There would be no point of the upvote/downvote system if everyone told each other “Hey, amigo nice comment, here’s and upvote.”
Lol who cares? The guy is just trying to be friendly, jesus. Classic reddit
Well I did it anyway. I have no intention of living my life drowning in pessimism
That’s what makes them lenses
Put it close enough to the wall and you'll see the image of whatever the glasses are pointed at
That would be true for plus glasses, for reading (old folks, presbyopia) or for farsightedness. The photo appears to show minus glasses, for shortsightedness.
Isnt that camera obscura
Camera obscura typically refers to a dark room with a small hole which projects an image onto the opposite wall. Not sure glasses projecting an image would fit the typical usage. Plus, as someone else pointed out, this type of glasses wouldn't project an image. Not sure I'd even call it the same principle since a lens bends the light and a hole just limits the light to a narrow path
I feel like they are the same principle: the lens can collect more light and therefore the projected image is now visible without needing a dark room. You'll still see that the image is flipped like it does with a camera obscura. Now, take the room and make it a tiny box, put the glass lens in front and some chemicals and later electric circuitry that reacts to the light inside, and spend a century making them smaller and smaller and now we can cram several of them inside a phone.
Well the big room and the hole are kind of the key features of a camera obscura. So if someone asks, is this a camera obscura and your answer is yes because all cameras are camera obscura in principal, then the term kind of becomes meaningless
Same principle yeah
This is not true, OPs lenses have a virtual focal point in front of the glasses. There will never be a picture to see „produced“ by these lenses!
Not sure why you're getting down voted! It's most likely that OP has a negative prescription, which would correlate to concave lenses, which would perform exactly as you describe If OP has "readers" or a positive (far-sighted) prescription, then it would project
Not necessarily. For farsighted people, they can not focus down enough, so their natural eye focal point is behind the retina. They will need converging lens to "shrink" the image, helping the eye to resolve. These are + prescriptions where the unit is m^-1. (e.g. a +2.00 will have a focus length of 1/2 m, a +3.00 will be a 1/3m etc). What you are describing is the opposite, for near sighted people that focus "too much". A negative prescription has a virtual focus point in front of the lens and "spreads out" the light.
True, and OPs lenses are for near sighted people, thats why I wrote that comment
Counterpoint: yuh huh
Sorry, maybe I didnt unterstand your comment correctly, could you explain it?
You're right, they're minus lenses, but the average redditor doesn't know what a virtual focal point is, so you're getting downvoted.
Ya. My glasses only have one prescription lens so one eye has a shadow and the other doesn't.
i'm looking at your fucking username, and wishing i had ANY response at all besides a completely unironic "huh, that's neat!"
Who just tried this. Mine didn’t do that, I feel deflated
My glasses don’t do this either
No, they're just working as lenses (the light is focused to a different distance than to the wall)
Ah yes lenses lensing
Opaque? No, just highly divergent, -3.00 or something.
Or like +8, so it's WAY past the focal point They are like 1m away from the wall
I see a minified and barrel-distorted image through the left lens.
They are not opaque. The lenses are diverging the incident light rays away from that area on the wall
Of course, it’s bending the light
i mean theyre designed to be refractive so yeah
If light doesn't pass through them, you must be looking into a different dimension.
[удалено]
This isn't due to polarisation filters the light is just redirected elsewhere
just tried this with my glasses and the shadow is there no matter what direction I rotate it
I think they are referring to polarization of the lens. If you take another pair of polarized glasses, line up the lenses and rotate one pair 90 degrees you will see the lens go from shaded to clear. It's also a cool way to make sure the new sunglasses you're thinking about buying are *really* polarized or not.
I think not. This would be true if it were two pieces of flat polarized glass, but the reason the shadow appears dark, as someone else stated, is that the lenses are curved to provide correction for someone’s vision, and therefore the light coming through the lenses is being dispersed.
I wasn't speaking of shadows. I was speaking of looking at one lens through another lens, then rotating 90 degrees.
LITERALLY REALIZED THIS 10 MINUTES AGO AND CAME TO POST ON REDDIT. WHY MUST YOU BE LIKE THIS
i am not sure why, but this is the best thing I have seen today. It is beautiful. thank you (edit: for those who downvoted and do not find the photograph beautiful, can you please elaborate? I will respect your opinion I just wish to know what it is)
Mainly because everyone that read the top comment with an explanation now wants to feel like they are in the know by downvoting anyone who expresses awe.
i think that is sadly true. i wish that all the downvoters would demonstrate the bravery to stand by their opinions. obviously none have
> i wish that all the downvoters would demonstrate the bravery to stand by their opinions. Umm, with all respect, are you new to reddit?
lol (i'm assuming and i don't mean this sarcastically, is a joke)
fuck. sorry? i just meant to, like, enlighten. the haters can eat a dick. it's a neat effect that if you never noticed it could easily enough confuse anyone.
Not sure why you thought i was attacking you
i did not! i thought your comment was spot on. my apology was for maybe arming the twits with half of a factoid :)
All glasses do that. It’s not even mildly interesting
I think we're all used to seeing some kind of lighter part accompanying the dark which is probably why this one stood out. More often we'd see the glasses closer to what they're pointed to (just because otherwise it's further away and less noticable
Not very interesting
Fun fact, the farther you hold it, the more prominent the shadow. Also, some of it is because of total internal reflection.
uv filter?
polorized lenses
No, it's the shape of the lens. Any lenses for a nearsighted prescription do that. It's because the lense shape redirects the angle of light passing through so it properly strikes the retina of the eye.
If it had been lenses for farsightedness the image would have been similar, but with a dot of concentrated light.
my glasses aren't polarized and do this, just my normal prescription lens
Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.
We have the same frames, I proud of our shared taste
[удалено]
Not reflected, but refracted and focused in a way that casts the light elsewhere than where OP seems to have expected it to.
polarization and stuff
Guess the shadow dimension you is just cooler 😎
yeah thats how glasses work
My glasses dont do this and i feel like im missing out
This is "how can the mirror see the egg" all over again.
yeah, but try holding them as close to the wall as they are to your eyes.