Are Colors Related to Energy? Exploring the Possibility of Infrared Vision

[sankalpmittal]

Hey guys. I have been thinking about it for quite a time but have not yet understood what exactly colours are. Are they in any way related to energy ? If so, how ?

 

[dipstik]

our eyes perceive radiation of wavelengths between 400 and 700 nanometers as colors due to an interaction with our eyes anatomy with our nervous system

there are rods and cones at the back of our eyes. cones interpret photons as color.

blue is higher energy than red because it has a faster frequency, hence a smaller wavelength.

 

[sankalpmittal]

our eyes perceive radiation of wavelengths between 400 and 700 nanometers as colors due to an interaction with our eyes anatomy with our nervous system

there are rods and cones at the back of our eyes. cones interpret photons as color.

blue is higher energy than red because it has a faster frequency, hence a smaller wavelength.

So, that must mean that different animals will see different colours. Even some humans would be seeing very slight difference in colours as the interaction between the eyes anatomy and nervous system would be slight different than others. Just slight.

 

[russ_watters]

Except for people who have selective color blindness, yes.

Kinda mind blowing that colors are inventions of our brains, though, huh?

 

[danR]

Except for people who have selective color blindness, yes.

Kinda mind blowing that colors are inventions of our brains, though, huh?

Yes, colors are the names we give to the sensations we feel when the visual cortex is excited by nerve impulses coming from the retina when it's struck by light between 400 and 700 nm.

The best quote I remember was on mySpace physics: 'My favorite color is 650 nm.'

 

[BruceW]

Another interesting point is that some reptiles can see infrared (helping them catch their prey), and some insects can see ultraviolet (guiding them into flowers).
These wavelengths are outside the 400-700nm range, i.e. humans can't see these things.
What I'm interested to know is that when those reptiles see infrared, do they just see a dark red colour, or do they see some other colour, which us humans have no word for?

 

[BruceW]

Or do those reptiles smell or feel infrared light. (since it is detected by pits on their nose)

 

[danR]

Or do those reptiles smell or feel infrared light. (since it is detected by pits on their nose)

I think they see the colour 'food'.

 

[BruceW]

good answer :)

 

[sankalpmittal]

I think they see the colour 'food'.

Or do those reptiles smell or feel infrared light. (since it is detected by pits on their nose)

good answer :)

Another interesting point is that some reptiles can see infrared (helping them catch their prey), and some insects can see ultraviolet (guiding them into flowers).
These wavelengths are outside the 400-700nm range, i.e. humans can't see these things.
What I'm interested to know is that when those reptiles see infrared, do they just see a dark red colour, or do they see some other colour, which us humans have no word for?

Yes, colors are the names we give to the sensations we feel when the visual cortex is excited by nerve impulses coming from the retina when it's struck by light between 400 and 700 nm.

The best quote I remember was on mySpace physics: 'My favorite color is 650 nm.'

Except for people who have selective color blindness, yes.

Kinda mind blowing that colors are inventions of our brains, though, huh?

our eyes perceive radiation of wavelengths between 400 and 700 nanometers as colors due to an interaction with our eyes anatomy with our nervous system

there are rods and cones at the back of our eyes. cones interpret photons as color.

blue is higher energy than red because it has a faster frequency, hence a smaller wavelength.

Thanks all .

 

[Redbelly98]

We're able to distinguish different colors because we have 3 different types of cones (daytime light detectors) in our eyes, which are relatively sensitive to different parts of the visible spectrum. So our brain isn't only getting information about brightness, it also gets the information that -- for example -- the red cones are reacting more strongly than the green and blue cones, therefore this object I am seeing is red.

[URL]http://wiki.umd.edu/wikivision/images/9/9d/Color_1.jpg[/URL]
(From http://wiki.umd.edu/wikivision/index.php?title=Color_blindness )​

 

[VihariP]

As BRUCE W points out what is the color of infrared waves? Of course it is irrelevant to talk about color when we do not perceive it, but what if we suddenly got the capability of sensing low energy photons. Then what? What would be the color of infrared. let's give it a thought.

 

[danR]

As BRUCE W points out what is the color of infrared waves? Of course it is irrelevant to talk about color when we do not perceive it, but what if we suddenly got the capability of sensing low energy photons. Then what? What would be the color of infrared. let's give it a thought.

According to what I said above, colour is the name we give to perceptions arising of excitations in the visual cortex. That can include colours in dreams: the component of the visual cortex responsible for the sensation is active. The component of the brain in dreaming or waking for perceiving that sensation is active.

If there is no receptor for IF among the visual cells to send a signal to the component of the visual cortex responsible for colour sensations, there will be no 'colour' for IF. The concept has no meaning.

 

[Waterfox]

As BRUCE W points out what is the color of infrared waves? Of course it is irrelevant to talk about color when we do not perceive it, but what if we suddenly got the capability of sensing low energy photons. Then what? What would be the color of infrared. let's give it a thought.

I imagine colours will be expanded over the new range, so infrared would just be red.
If we saw the whole frequency then gamma would be blue and radio red. Looking at the range of normal visible light, you wouldn't see much difference.

 

[danR]

I imagine colours will be expanded over the new range, so infrared would just be red.
If we saw the whole frequency then gamma would be blue and radio red. Looking at the range of normal visible light, you wouldn't see much difference.

Let's back up a little. 'Colour' is a mental construct. EM has no 'colour' whatsoever in any band of the spectrum, from VLF to gamma.

If, over the course of time, people's low-frequency cone receptors shifted their sensitivity rightward on redbelly's scale above, all things being equal in the brain, IF would probably correspond with the sensation 'red'. But another possibility would be a mutant red cone-receptor developing parallel to the original and we would have 4 sensitivity bands, and 'red' would stay in its original place, and the mutant would excite the 'colour':

UNKNOWABLE.

 

[DaveC426913]

I imagine colours will be expanded over the new range, so infrared would just be red.

No. Red is interpreted because a particular molecule in the retina is chemically transformed by a particular frequency range of photons.

To sense IR, we would have to have a different molecule, and it would be wired up to the brain differently, so it would not simply be an extrapolation of existing red.

Same with UV.

 

[OmCheeto]

We're able to distinguish different colors because we have 3 different types of cones (daytime light detectors) in our eyes, which are relatively sensitive to different parts of the visible spectrum. So our brain isn't only getting information about brightness, it also gets the information that -- for example -- the red cones are reacting more strongly than the green and blue cones, therefore this object I am seeing is red.

[URL]http://wiki.umd.edu/wikivision/images/9/9d/Color_1.jpg[/URL]
(From http://wiki.umd.edu/wikivision/index.php?title=Color_blindness )​

hmmm...

I've noticed that I, and a few people I've run into, seem to observe things differently than most other people. I thought I was just a freak. But then again...

"[URL color experience in observers with
multiple photopigment opsin genes[/URL]
KIMBERLY A. JAMESON and SUSAN M. HIGHNOTE
University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California
and
LINDA M. WASSERMAN
University of California at San Diego School of Medicine, La Jolla, California
​

Traditional color vision theory posits that three types of retinal photopigments transduce light into a trivariate neural color code, thereby explaining color-matching behaviors. This principle of trichromacy is in need of reexamination in view of molecular genetics results suggesting that a substantial percentage of women possesses more than three classes of retinal photopigments.

There is a certain flower that grows wild in my area, that I've always been fascinated with. It seems to glow. For me at least. No one else seems interested in it.

It doesn't really have a different colour. It simply glows differently.

I wonder if this is why women are more flower prone than men?

hmmm... I think I'm straying outside of the OP. But then again, maybe not. Or perhaps this question belongs somewhere else? Or perhaps, like after so many other long days, I simply belong in bed?

good night everyone. :zzz:

 

[Waterfox]

Let's back up a little. 'Colour' is a mental construct. EM has no 'colour' whatsoever in any band of the spectrum, from VLF to gamma.

That's what I was saying, our brain would interpret IR as being the colour red.
I just meant that if our eyes and brain had developed to see the whole spectrum, our current colour (what our brain sees) spectrum would be scaled to the new EM range.
Unless of course it created new 'colours' to associate with different frequencies, that is if it possible for the brain to create more colours than it has already.

 

[DaveC426913]

That's what I was saying, our brain would interpret IR as being the colour red.

There is no reason to think this. The molecule that is linked to red does not respond to IR. The processes that turn frequency into colour know or care nothing about where on the spectrum a colour/frequency might fall (we know nothing of the "EM range"). Our brain does not know that green "falls between" red and blue, so there is no reason for our brain to interpret IR (if we had the receptors to do) as any more related to red than to, say, blue.

 

[sankalpmittal]

So, then , the concept is that colour are the creative names given by our brain to the different frequencies we perceive. That means there are lots of different colours perceived by us but not distinguished. Then the brain may just create another colour for infrared which maybe much distinguishable or very less distinguishable.

 

[danR]

So, then , the concept is that colour are the creative names given by our brain to the different frequencies we perceive. That means there are lots of different colours perceived by us but not distinguished. Then the brain may just create another colour for infrared which maybe much distinguishable or very less distinguishable.

As long as we avoid using cognitive-psychological terms too loosely. I don't like philosophical pickiness much, but here it's good to distinguish 'perceive', and 'sensation', from the raw mechanics of physics.

If we developed an IR sensitive mutant cone, it might be hard-wired to the RED sensation interpreter in the visual cortex, which would simply expand our sensitivity into the IR range, but not give rise to any new 'colour'. I guess we would see the boiling water on the stove as red. We would say,

"Hey honey, the water is looking bright red, put in the rice.". Detectives on TV would say, "This car's been used recently, the hood is red." And of course, our TV's would have red phosphors extending down to IR emission, so we could see the evidence for ourselves.

Or a mutant cone might develop a separate nerve channel to a new area of the brain that gives rise to a sensation distinguished from red.

That colour/sensation would be UNKNOWABLE to us and our imaginations and speculations. Just as people nerve-blind from conception have no idea what 'seeing' is. They hear people talk about it, and use the term as best they can, but it evokes no sensation or memory or anything.

 

[DaveC426913]

If we developed an IR sensitive mutant cone, it might be hard-wired to the RED sensation interpreter in the visual cortex,

or, equally as likely, the GREEN one or the BLUE one.

 

[danR]

or, equally as likely, the GREEN one or the BLUE one.

Yup. Fortunately the whole colour system seems to be very stable across populations, and hopefully we'll all change together. There is colour-blindness, but I don't think anyone says, "Here's a good apple, nice and red".

"No it's not, it's a Granny Smith, I hate Granny Smith's."

I'll have to leave it there for my part. Have a tough course starting this week.

 

[DaveC426913]

or, equally as likely, the GREEN one or the BLUE one.

Actually, I take this back. A plausible case could be made why, if we were to miraculously be able to see in IR, it could be more likely the red pigment than green or blue.

As can be seen in OmCheeos' post 17, the pigments are sensitive across a range of frequencies in the shape of a bell curve. It is more plausible that the red sensitivity's range could get extended.

And frankly, I don't know why I made that argument at all. I have proof positive that, not only can it happen but it did happen - right in my own home!

My son can see into the near infrared. (Or at least, he can see farther into the red than other people can.) I did an experiment that showed beyond any reasonable doubt that he can see deep red light that is utterly invisible to the rest of us in the family.