Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Decoding the magic trick

  1. Dec 4, 2015 #1
    This is a magic trick performed on Penn and Teller: Fool us related to rubik's cube.
    The amazing thing here is that how the person solves a rubik cube when he removes the cube from the packet.
    Somebody has any logic?
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2015
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 4, 2015 #2
    Really depends on if it's a real Rubicks cube, or some sort of fake/gimmick one. Since we have no way of knowing, there's really not much point speculating.
     
  4. Dec 4, 2015 #3

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    Right. That plus it is astounding what good magicians can do in the way of slight of hand. I DO have to believe that there are gimmicked rubic cubes involved (probably more than one).

    The one piece of sloppiness (sort of) that I noticed is that when he tosses one behind his back and catches it, his hand dips below the table briefly. I assume that he could not pull it off while keeping his hand above the table. These guys don't do that sort of thing by mistake. Every move is carefully planned out and usually rehearsed thousands of time to make it look effortless and natural.
     
  5. Dec 5, 2015 #4
    But he cannot have switched a Rubik's cube while his hand went under table as he was holding it one-handed. His hand may have went down due to inertia as it was looking natural.
    What about that when he keeps the cube in packet and removes it solved. If it is a gimmicked one, then also how?
     
  6. Dec 5, 2015 #5

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    You are very naive about what magicians can do with slight of hand, especially when combined with props. You don't know WHAT was under that table. Of course he could have swapped it. As for his hand "going down due to inertia", there again you are being naive. There is NOTHING in these guys movements that is not planned down to the millimeter.
     
  7. Dec 5, 2015 #6
    Clearly he can solve a Rubik's cube very quickly. To my eyes, he solved the one in the bag as he was drawing it out.
    I am extremely suspicious of his count of the number of moves away from the solution he is. That must have been misdirection. He either moved far away and then most of the way back, or, more likely, a few moves away and then several meaningless moves that cancelled each other out.
    As far as dipping his hand beneath the table, that may have been a coincidence with the angle of the camera. Remember, he was presenting for Penn & Teller, we just got to watch. (That said, I do recognize the possibility that that was the trick.)
     
  8. Dec 5, 2015 #7

    From 0:54 he explains the trick with tossing the cube up and hiding the face that is not really solved yet.
     
  9. Dec 5, 2015 #8
    I saw this video, but it not explains that trick in OP.
    What he is doing is showing only one mixed side but in OP the magician is showing cube at an angle that we can see three mixed sides.
     
  10. Dec 5, 2015 #9
    My guess is he's using a mix of gimmicked cubes like in the video, slight of hand to swap out cubes at times, and good old misdirection and relying on the fact that very few people understand how the cubes are solved. Certain configurations might only be a move or two away from solving, but look difficult to a layman.

    As far as the bag trick, look at the way he holds the bag. The bag is never folded flat to show it is originally empty, and he does not show the bag is empty once he removes the solved cube. He holds the bag in such a way that it seems like he's grasping a second, solved cube, already hidden in the bag (which can be easily done using a false bottom). He then crumples the bag up, but immediately hides it away before it is fully crumpled.

    I'm guess he almost certainly had two cubes in the bag.
     
  11. Dec 5, 2015 #10
    Penn and Teller both looked into the bag and I don't believe they would have failed to spot that. Granted they could be in on it, but that's not the gimmick for their show.
     
  12. Dec 5, 2015 #11
    Obviously they're not in on it. But you're right, there's no way they could possibly overlook a very subtle detail like that, even without the benefiet of replay or multiple camera angles that we have. I guess he's really magic then.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Decoding the magic trick
  1. Magic. (Replies: 21)

  2. Magic (Replies: 4)

  3. Slushy Magic (Replies: 4)

Loading...