Hubbry Logo
Impossible cubeImpossible cubeMain
Open search
Impossible cube
Community hub
Impossible cube
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Impossible cube
Impossible cube
Impossible cube
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

An impossible cube, in the arrangement that appears in Escher's Belvedere print

The impossible cube or irrational cube is an impossible object invented by M.C. Escher for his 1958 print Belvedere. It is a two-dimensional figure that superficially resembles a perspective drawing of a three-dimensional cube, with its features drawn inconsistently from the way they would appear in an actual cube.

Usage in art

[edit]

In Escher's Belvedere a man seated at the foot of a building holds an impossible cube. A drawing of the related Necker cube (with its crossings circled) lies at his feet, while the building itself shares some of the same impossible features as the cube.[1][2] Another Escher print, Man with Cuboid, shows the same man and impossible cube, without the Necker cube drawing.[3] In Escher's version, the beams in the top half of the drawing are drawn as if viewed from above, with a crossing consistent with that point of view, while the beams in the bottom half are drawn as if viewed from below, again with a crossing consistent with that point of view.[4] This internal consistency of the top and bottom halves of the drawing is a reflection of the impossible tower that forms the main subject of Escher's print, whose interlaced pillars again look consistent if one views only a single floor at a time.[5]

Other artists than Escher, including Jos De Mey, have also made artworks featuring an impossible cube.[3] A doctored photograph purporting to be of an impossible cube was published in the June 1966 issue of Scientific American, where it was called a "Freemish crate".[6][7] An impossible cube has also been featured on an Austrian postage stamp, honoring the 10th Congress of the Austrian Mathematical Society in Innsbruck in 1981.[8] The Austrian stamp shows Escher's version, but some of these alternative versions draw all beams with a single viewpoint from above, reversing one or both of the crossings of the Necker cube from the way the beams of a standard cube would cross with that viewpoint.[9]

Explanation

[edit]
A possible three-dimensional non-cube object (left) that, when viewed from appropriate angle (right), appears to be an impossible cube with two struts overlapping
Impossible cube with forced perspective in Rotterdam, by Koos Verhoeff

The impossible cube draws upon the ambiguity present in a Necker cube illustration, in which a cube is drawn with its edges as line segments, and can be interpreted as being in either of two different three-dimensional orientations.

The apparent solidity of the beams gives the impossible cube greater visual ambiguity than the Necker cube, which is less likely to be perceived as an impossible object. The illusion plays on the human eye's interpretation of two-dimensional pictures as three-dimensional objects. It is possible for three-dimensional objects to have the visual appearance of the impossible cube when seen from certain angles, either by making carefully placed cuts in the supposedly solid beams or by using forced perspective, but human experience with right-angled objects makes the impossible appearance seem more likely than the reality.[6]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Impossible cube

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The impossible cube, also known as the irrational cube, is a two-dimensional representing a three-dimensional that defies the laws of and cannot be constructed in physical space. It appears as a perspective drawing of a where edges and faces inconsistently shift between foreground and background, creating an undecidable figure that challenges the viewer's perception of depth and structure. This illusion was invented by Dutch graphic artist in 1958 as a central element in his lithograph Belvedere, a print depicting an architectural scene incorporating multiple impossible objects. In Belvedere, the impossible cube is shown as a model held by a figure in the foreground, set within a larger impossible tower that blends realistic shading with paradoxical geometry. Escher's work built on earlier explorations of impossible figures, such as the impossible triangle by Oscar Reutersvärd in 1934, but the cube variant specifically exploits ambiguities in cubic projection similar to the reversible illusion. The impossible cube has become a seminal example in the study of , , and the philosophy of impossible objects, illustrating how the interprets ambiguous two-dimensional lines as coherent three-dimensional forms despite inherent contradictions. It influences fields from art and design to , where it demonstrates limitations in rendering realistic 3D models from 2D perspectives.

Definition and Description

Visual Representation

The impossible cube is commonly rendered as a two-dimensional wireframe composed of twelve straight line segments representing the edges of a , arranged to outline the front, side, and top faces while suggesting spatial depth through converging lines. These edges form a closed structure with vertices where three lines typically meet, creating the visual impression of interconnected surfaces in a three-dimensional form. In standard depictions, the drawing emulates , with non-parallel edges of the cube oriented at equal angles—often approximately 120 degrees—to parallel axes, fostering an illusion of uniform depth without a single . This style avoids true , keeping all faces equally foreshortened for a balanced, symmetrical appearance that enhances the cube's apparent solidity. Variations often incorporate shading or coloring to amplify the three-dimensional effect, such as subtle gradients on faces to simulate light incidence or distinct solid colors to delineate surfaces and imply occlusion. The classic wireframe version, frequently executed in bold black ink against a white background, maximizes line contrast to emphasize the geometric framework without additional embellishments. One notable example appears in M.C. Escher's lithograph Belvedere, where the cube is portrayed as a tangible assembled from beams, maintaining the wireframe essence amid a surreal architectural scene.

Key Features of the Illusion

The impossible cube illusion deceives the through ambiguous depth cues, particularly indicators like interposition and Y-junctions at edge overlaps, which prompt the to infer a three-dimensional structure from the two-dimensional line drawing. These cues lead to conflicting interpretations of relative distances among the cube's bars, as the visual processing integrates local geometric signals into a global form that cannot consistently exist in . Studies on demonstrate that even young viewers detect these inconsistencies by relying on such cues to discriminate impossible from possible cubes, highlighting the early emergence of depth processing mechanisms. A key element is the role of figure-ground organization, where the cube's edges create a reversible figure that allows faces to alternate in perceived orientation, exploiting Gestalt principles such as Prägnanz to favor simpler, closed 3D interpretations over fragmented 2D alternatives. This reversibility arises from ambiguous overlaps, where parts of the structure appear simultaneously as figure and ground, preventing stable segregation and perpetuating perceptual instability without a preferred resolution. The brain's tendency to impose continuity on these edges reinforces the by suppressing local anomalies in favor of an overall coherent object . The perceptual effects unfold in stages: an initial impression conveys a valid seemingly rotating in depth, as the rapidly constructs a plausible 3D model from familiar line configurations. Upon sustained inspection, however, the inconsistency becomes apparent, revealing edges that cannot connect without violation, which underscores the toward hypothesis-driven perception over direct sensory verification. This delayed detection illustrates how low-level feature integration precedes higher-level consistency checks in visual processing. The illusion's potency is modulated by , as minor shifts in observer position—such as head tilt—alter the apparent convergence of , thereby changing the relative salience of depth cues and the overall coherence of the perceived form. These variations can weaken or intensify the deceptive quality without eliminating the core impossibility, since the drawing's fixed inconsistencies persist across perspectives. This sensitivity to viewpoint echoes the critical angles observed in three-dimensional realizations of impossible objects, where alignment enhances the paradoxical effect.

Historical Development

Origins in Art and Geometry

The foundations of the impossible cube trace back to experiments in perspective, where artists sought to represent three-dimensional forms like cubes on a two-dimensional plane. , in his 1525 treatise Underweysung der Messung mit dem Zirckel und Richtscheyt, systematically explored geometric projections of solids, including cubes, to achieve realistic depth through linear perspective techniques. These efforts highlighted the challenges of translating into visual art, as inconsistent viewpoints could lead to perceptual ambiguities in cube renderings, laying groundwork for later paradoxical figures. In the 18th and 19th centuries, advancements in descriptive geometry further illuminated the limitations of such projections. , often credited as the inventor of descriptive geometry, developed methods in the 1790s to accurately depict three-dimensional objects using orthogonal projections onto two planes, as detailed in his lectures at the . While intended for precise engineering and artistic representation, Monge's system inadvertently underscored the difficulties in maintaining consistent spatial relations for complex forms like cubes, where multiple projection views could reveal inconsistencies not apparent in single perspectives. Precursors to explicit impossible figures appeared in artistic critiques of perspective errors; for instance, William Hogarth's 1754 engraving deliberately incorporated paradoxical architectural elements and lines, to mock flawed geometric depictions in art. By the late 19th century, studies began to formalize these perceptual discrepancies, with early cube-like figures emerging in . Louis Albert Necker's 1832 rhomboid , later interpreted as a , demonstrated how line-based representations could flip between two stable 3D interpretations, revealing the brain's role in resolving ambiguous projections—a direct antecedent to impossible cubes that defy any single valid interpretation. Johann Joseph Oppel's 1855 work on , including distortions in perceived lengths and angles within grid-like structures, extended these ideas by coining the term and experimenting with shapes that challenged Euclidean expectations, predating formal recognition. Impossible figures, including cube variants, arose culturally from the tension between artistic pursuits of illusionistic depth—rooted in techniques—and the inherent constraints of , which assumes consistent spatial rules ill-suited to paradoxical 2D renderings. This intersection fostered informal sketches in 19th-century illusion studies, where researchers like Oppel explored how perspective could produce undecidable forms, influencing later artistic explorations without yet achieving the deliberate impossibilities of the .

Evolution and Popularization

The concept of impossible figures originated earlier with Swedish artist Oscar Reutersvärd's invention of the impossible triangle in 1934. The mid-20th-century popularization of impossible figures occurred in 1958 when psychiatrist Lionel S. Penrose and mathematician published their seminal paper "Impossible objects: A special type of visual " in the British Journal of . Their work focused on the impossible triangle and endless but extended the framework to other inconsistent three-dimensional representations in subsequent psychological studies of and cognitive processing. In the same year, Dutch artist independently introduced the impossible cube in his lithograph Belvedere, depicting a paradoxical architectural structure that highlighted geometric ambiguities and inspired numerous cube-based variants explored by artists and researchers in the 1960s. The impossible cube's popularization accelerated in the 1970s and 1980s through its integration into educational materials and emerging visual technologies. It featured prominently in textbooks on , notably Richard L. Gregory's Eye and Brain: The Psychology of Seeing (first edition 1966; revised editions through 1990), where it exemplified how the brain interprets contradictory depth cues, influencing curricula in and art education. Concurrently, the figure appeared in applications, including experimental logos and early , where vector line drawings facilitated demonstrations of projection and rendering in systems like those developed at PARC and academic labs during the era. In the modern digital era, the impossible cube proliferated via accessible design software, such as (introduced ), which streamlined the creation of scalable vector variants for print and web use, democratizing its application in and . Its spread intensified online around with the advent of graphical web browsers, as early websites and forums shared interactive and animated versions, leading to viral dissemination in educational and contexts.

Mathematical Explanation

Perspective and Projection Errors

Linear perspective is a technique for creating the illusion of depth in two-dimensional representations of three-dimensional objects, achieved by drawing in the object as converging toward one or more s on a . This convergence mimics how the perceives distance, where objects farther away appear smaller and parallel features, such as the edges of a or building, seem to meet at a distant point. In depictions of cubes, linear perspective ensures that all sets of parallel edges in the 3D form share the same when projected onto the 2D plane, maintaining spatial coherence. Relevant projection types for rendering cubes include orthographic and isometric projections, both of which differ from linear perspective by avoiding convergence altogether. Orthographic projection represents objects as if viewed from an infinite distance, keeping all parallel in the drawing to preserve true dimensions without distortion from depth. Isometric projection, a subset of orthographic (specifically axonometric), displays three faces of a equally, with axes at 120-degree angles and no vanishing points, allowing accurate measurement but lacking the depth illusion of perspective. The impossible cube disrupts these principles by inconsistently blending elements: some edges remain parallel as in or isometric views, while others converge toward vanishing points as in linear perspective, resulting in a hybrid that defies consistent spatial interpretation. Specific errors arise in the impossible cube's structure, where the front face may align with a standard perspective projection using a single for its receding edges, but the adjacent side and top faces employ incompatible vanishing points or that fail to align. This mismatch causes non-Euclidean overlaps, such as edges that appear to intersect impossibly or faces that shift between foreground and background positions. To demonstrate visually, trace one edge from the front face rearward; it should connect to a side edge converging to the same , but instead leads to a parallel or misaligned segment on the top face, creating a loop where the path returns to the starting point in a contradictory orientation that cannot exist in . Continuing the trace around the figure reveals further inconsistencies, such as a bar appearing as the front edge from one viewpoint but the rear from another, underscoring the projection's fundamental incompatibility.

Geometric Inconsistencies

The impossibility of realizing the impossible cube in three-dimensional Euclidean space can be demonstrated through a coordinate geometry approach. Attempting to assign 3D coordinates to the eight vertices of the figure—typically labeled A through H based on the 2D line drawing—reveals fundamental inconsistencies in the z-depth values required to connect all edges as depicted. For example, placing vertex A at (0,0,0) and propagating coordinates along one set of edges (e.g., A to B to C to D) yields a specific position for an opposite vertex like H, but tracing an alternative path (e.g., A to E to F to G to H) results in a conflicting location for H, as the z-coordinates cannot simultaneously satisfy both routes without violating the projected 2D positions. This depth contradiction emerges from the propagation of local depth information across the structure's components, where beams or edges that appear connected in the 2D projection are physically separated in 3D, leading to incompatible global positioning. A topological further underscores the issue, as the edges of the impossible cube form a graph whose in 3D space is impossible without self-intersections or distortions that contradict the figure's apparent connectivity. The cube's skeletal structure represents a specific configuration of cycles and links that violates theorems in Euclidean 3D; for instance, the arrangement requires disjoint components to intersect or link in ways prohibited by properties of spatial graphs. This aligns with intrinsic linking theory, where theorems such as the Conway-Gordon-Sachs result demonstrate that certain point sets in 3D inevitably produce linked cycles, but the impossible cube's cannot be realized without forcing such prohibited intersections in its projection. These inconsistencies manifest quantitatively through distance calculations between vertices. The formula, d=(x2−x1)2+(y2−y1)2+(z2−z1)2,d = \sqrt{(x_2 - x_1)^2 + (y_2 - y_1)^2 + (z_2 - z_1)^2},
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.