Seeing more than the visible light spectrum

[Frozen]

Maybe this sounds mad, but does anyone think it would be possible to see wavelengths that are beyond visible light, maybe through genetic engineering or through other technology? There are many animals than can see infrared & UV. Wouldn't it be cool if we could see what radio waves look like?

 

[Bandersnatch]

or through other technology

You mean, like a radio telescope or infrared googles?

 

[sophiecentaur]

Wouldn't it be cool if we could see what radio waves look like?

I see where you are coming from but did you consider what sort of picture we could get, for our brains to make sense of? To a limited degree, it would not be difficult to imagine stretching our Red sensitivity down into the IR, so that we could see hot objects glowing. But how would that improve our ability to survive (in terms of evolution). Being able to spot UV could also be a help in avoiding bright sunlight and protect our skin from the risk of cancer - but we can do that already and (if we have enough sense) avoid frying ourselves. Other animals have found advantages in using slightly different regions of the EM spectrum- but they are all working on the fringes of our visual response. (snakes and bees, for instance)
Seeing radio waves would be a different matter. A powered antenna would, perhaps appear to have a fuzzy region around it, corresponding to the local fields that radiate the RF waves. But you have to ask yourself how that could be an advantage. Of course, there were no significant sources of RF waves whilst we were evolving, which could explain why we never developed the ability (i.e. no need) and our body dimensions mean that we could expect very low acuity of RF vision so we could not see any detail.
On a similar line, Superman's fabulous hearing ability has to be a nonsense idea because, as well as the person crying for help in the next state, everyone in the vicinity would be producing such high levels of 'interference' that he would be deafened.

 

[robphy]

Curious... But one should be skeptical without further evidence:
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/118557-the-eyes-have-it-seeing-ultraviolet-exploring-color

 

[sophiecentaur]

Curious... But one should be skeptical without further evidence:
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/118557-the-eyes-have-it-seeing-ultraviolet-exploring-color

Hmm. The theory in that link is a bit hazy (worse than that in places but perhaps due to the journalist who reported the work), although I am not at all surprised about that guy's experience of extended hf vision. In terms of the generally accepted tristimulus theory of colour vision, he would be getting a combination of signals from his three sensors that he had never experienced before. Exactly what he would perceive / see would probably depend on his past experience of low light levels and blues / violets. He would, presumably relate it to things he had already seen.
Vision in this region of colour space is all a bit approximate, with the 'official' colour Indigo, appearing somewhere among the 'Purples' and not at the far end of the spectral colours.

 

[Tazerfish]

You could implant electrodes close to your retina to stimulate the photosensitive cells and hook them up to a camera.
Then you could switch out the cameras for IR, UV or pretty much anything.
On a side note: That sounds like a terrible idea.

 

[sophiecentaur]

You could implant electrodes close to your retina to stimulate the photosensitive cells and hook them up to a camera.
Then you could switch out the cameras for IR, UV or pretty much anything.
On a side note: That sounds like a terrible idea.

You would need to switch modes, somehow because there would be UV or IR inputs that would produce the same sensations as regular colours. Actually, some very neat fitting goggles would probably achieve the same thing without tampering with the eyes at all. Night vision goggles work very well for the military and our brains seem to be pretty flexible about that sort of thing. False colour displays would be quite easy to deal with. After all, it the spatial information that's most important when you're running around in the dark or looking for a particular pattern of UV reflecting surface.

 

[Vanadium 50]

You mean, like a radio telescope or infrared googles?

Or x-ray specs.

 

[mrspeedybob]

Cameras and false color displays pretty much the address original question, but there is a related idea that I've been pondering for a while.

How would you go about "seeing" spectrums instead of averages colors? For example, being able to distinguish something that is green from something that is blue+yellow. It seems like this information would have been an huge evolutionary advantage. For example, if I could see the spectum of a plant leaf then I could see if it contains anything poisonous or if it safe to eat.

 

[sophiecentaur]

How would you go about "seeing" spectrums instead of averages colors?

As we only see colour with three parameters and our brain sticks that colour value on top of any object in our view. There is a conflict of requirements. You could introduce severe Chromatic Aberration which could put fringes around everything. Those fringes could give you the spectrum of the light coming from an object but your acuity would go.
PS your Green=blue and yellow refers to subtractive mixing - as with pigments. It is more useful to talk about additive mixing of colours - as with colour TV where you can actually measure the spectral components of what you see. Additive mixing is based on three Primaries A red, a green and a blue. When you 'see' yellow that's composed of Red and Green, you can actually see the separate primaries (with a spectrometer). When you see the result of mixing pigments, there is no way of telling which pigments have actually been used because you can only see what happens to leak through. There is a lot of airy fairy stuff written about colour vision and it's hard to recommend a suitable source of info but you could read this link which is 'not wrong'. Artists deal in pigments and their life is different and their approach can be pretty non-scientific. What is written is often self-consistent but is hard to relate to the Physics of what goes on.

 

[sophiecentaur]

if I could see the spectum of a plant leaf then I could see if it contains anything poisonous or if it safe to eat

At first sight that would make good sense. However:
I was recently looking into getting rid of Rats and I learned that rats cannot vomit. Amazing, you might say - bearing in mind what stuff they have available to eat. But apparently, they (or evolution) 'chose' to have excellent smell and that's how they avoid too many of them dying from poisoning. We rely on existing vision, smell and taste (plus the ability to chunder) and it works pretty well (statistically) so we have evolved without the need (and cost) of spectral analysis of plants. We only do a bare minimum to deal with evolutionary threats and only when there is a significantly advantage. Nature is soo lazy.

 

[anorlunda]

I think it would be very fun to have goggles that gave us extended wavelength vision in false colors.)

For example, as I write this, I'm looking at a rotating radar antenna. If I could see radar, I imagine it would look like a searchlight beam sweeping the sky. When it intercepts an airplane, I would see a flash of light. If I could see radio, then a person talking on a cell phone would appear to have a shimmering light held up to his ear. If I could see radio, I would see the "color" of my favorite station fade away as I drive out of range. If I could see Xrays, my luggage at the airport would light up blue as it went through the machine.

But we shouldn't have to wait for goggles. Computer processing should be make it easy to produce videos with false color representations of extended wavelength vision. I would be grateful if a PF member could supply some links to such videos or stills. They would be fun to see.

 

[write4u]

This may be of interest:

http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2013/07/11/splash1_b.jpg/image_full

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/11jul_cobaltblue/

Which brought to mind the question if there are large objects composed of particles in the non-visible wavelengths, undetectable with current technology.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I think it would be very fun to have goggles that gave us extended wavelength vision in false colors.)

For example, as I write this, I'm looking at a rotating radar antenna. If I could see radar, I imagine it would look like a searchlight beam sweeping the sky. When it intercepts an airplane, I would see a flash of light. If I could see radio, then a person talking on a cell phone would appear to have a shimmering light held up to his ear. If I could see radio, I would see the "color" of my favorite station fade away as I drive out of range. If I could see Xrays, my luggage at the airport would light up blue as it went through the machine.

But we shouldn't have to wait for goggles. Computer processing should be make it easy to produce videos with false color representations of extended wavelength vision. I would be grateful if a PF member could supply some links to such videos or stills. They would be fun to see.

I think your description of 'seeing' the RF signals is leaving out one important factor and that is Diffraction. If you are trying to observe long EM wavelengths, you need a very large aperture in order to obtain the sort of optical acuity that you are implying. Also, the apparent size of any object can not be smaller than the wavelength used to observe it with. The world, as seen by 1m wavelength signals is full of fuzzy objects that overlap by around one metre.
We already have ways of imaging with a huge range of wavelengths but it necessarily involves intermediate 'translation' of what our equipment sees into images which are formed using optical wavelengths. The slight extension of visible spectrum that some animals use could perhaps be achieved with some forms of intermediate / bionic 'personal viewer' which we could use for a more convincing view of things than a TV, holographic display on the wall or VR goggles that we already have available.

 

[mrspeedybob]

As we only see colour with three parameters and our brain sticks that colour value on top of any object in our view. There is a conflict of requirements.

I was thinking more along the lines of training the brain to perceive multiple colors at the same spot, at the same time.

Normally, our brains construct a 3 dimensional model of our environment from a pair of 2 dimensional images. However, the brain is amazingly adaptable. I was trying to think of a way to give it a pair of 3 dimensional images, with the 3'rd dimension being spectrum, so your brain would then construct a 4D model out of a pair of 3D images. I'm sure that at least some peoples brains would be plastic enough to pull that off, if you figure out a way of inputting the raw data.

You're right though in that, evolutionary, there would be little advantage to seeing spectrum, as it would be redundant to our senses of smell and taste as far as determining somethings composition. Still, I think trying to achieve it artificially would be an interesting challenge.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Normally, our brains construct a 3 dimensional model of our environment from a pair of 2 dimensional images.

That is a bit too simplistic. Totally blind people construct very detailed and accurate models of the world around them without ever 'seeing' anything (2D or 3D). Likewise, a WW2 submarine commander or a 19th Century mariner (things are probably better now) construced perfectly good images of where they were and where they were going. One eyed people don't fall over or bump into things. Our world image is far more sophisticated than what our binocular vision shows us at any instant.

I do agree, though, that we can train our brains to use all sorts of 'unnatural' data inputs and relate them to our world. I am wondering, however, what the best method of presenting that information would be. We use plenty of 'bolt-ons' already, to widen our spectral input. That connection between our visual world and the extra information we can be given can easily (or with practice) be achieved already to an extent. Would implants or suchlike be necessarily better? A HUD can already be used very effectively by a fighter pilot, using his regular eyes. There is always the worry that an 'enhancement' could become a 'replacement'.
This thread is proving to be very entertaining and thought provoking.

 

[Furyan5]

You people do realize that we don't actually see light right? We see the object from which the detectable light eminates. If we could actually see any wavelength of light, we would be blinded by a thick fog, as light completely surrounds us.

 

[sophiecentaur]

You people do realize that we don't actually see light right? We see the object from which the detectable light eminates. If we could actually see any wavelength of light, we would be blinded by a thick fog, as light completely surrounds us.

This is a bit radical! and you need to re-think it. You only see the light that actually enters your eye. The term "Light" refers to the parts of the EM spectrum that our eyes can detect and we cannot see the light that is going past us without entering our eyes. If we happen to be aware of a passing beam of light, it is because of the particles (dust and, to a lesser extent, gas molecules) out there which scatter a tiny proportion of it in our direction. (Glare and fog)
Being sensitive to a wider spectrum of radiation would not alter that.
There is little point in seeing UV as there are (thankfully) relatively only low levels reaching the Earth's surface. Being sensitive more in the IR direction would not help a lot either because we would be more aware of re-radiated heat from objects than the IR that's reflected from them. Even longer wavelengths would be very inconvenient to detect because we should need enormous apertures in order to have any acuity of vision at, say microwave frequencies.
Evolution has selected the optimum bit of the spectrum that we use on the (usual) basis of cost / benefit. Every capability that an organism has involves using resources and 'Mother Nature' has very economical design criteria. (I do not intent that to be taken literally, of course. )

 

[anorlunda]

This is fanciful, but I would like to see the radio spectrum. It would be cool to see the sky glow in the direction of my local radio station transmitter, or pinpoints of moving lights as people talk on their phones as they walk down the sidewalk.

But I don't need modified eyes, I only need someone to make an animated film depicting what those things might look like. Call it art.

 

[tech99]

Maybe this sounds mad, but does anyone think it would be possible to see wavelengths that are beyond visible light, maybe through genetic engineering or through other technology? There are many animals than can see infrared & UV. Wouldn't it be cool if we could see what radio waves look like?

I seem to remember reading that the eye does have a slight response to near UV and if you place a red and a blue filter in tandem in front of the eye you can see a dim world in ultra violet. I do remember trying this experiment, which seemed to work on a sunny day, but I cannot seem to find the details again.

 

[Furyan5]

This is a bit radical! and you need to re-think it. You only see the light that actually enters your eye. The term "Light" refers to the parts of the EM spectrum that our eyes can detect and we cannot see the light that is going past us without entering our eyes. If we happen to be aware of a passing beam of light, it is because of the particles (dust and, to a lesser extent, gas molecules) out there which scatter a tiny proportion of it in our direction. (Glare and fog)
Being sensitive to a wider spectrum of radiation would not alter that.
There is little point in seeing UV as there are (thankfully) relatively only low levels reaching the Earth's surface. Being sensitive more in the IR direction would not help a lot either because we would be more aware of re-radiated heat from objects than the IR that's reflected from them. Even longer wavelengths would be very inconvenient to detect because we should need enormous apertures in order to have any acuity of vision at, say microwave frequencies.
Evolution has selected the optimum bit of the spectrum that we use on the (usual) basis of cost / benefit. Every capability that an organism has involves using resources and 'Mother Nature' has very economical design criteria. (I do not intent that to be taken literally, of course. )

I know it's radical. The book of general ignorance actually states that light is invisible. Pg 122 if you wish to check. The term visible light is a misnomer. It refers to the light which makes objects visible. The light itself is not actually visible. Although detection occurs in the eyes, we only detect light that strikes the retina. Physical contact is needed. Therefore we FEEL light. Seeing occurs in the visual cortex of the brain. We see THROUGH our eyes because we detect light WITH our eyes. Do you realize that we SEE black? Nlp (non light parception) blind people do not SEE black or darkness. They see nothing. No visual perception is not black. Black is a visual perception. I'll admit we see light in the sense of brightness, but that's a sensation, not light (EM waves). Brightness is the brains interpretation of the amplitude of an EM wave. The more energy an object emits, the higher the amplitude of the wave, the brighter the object appears. Where does it appear? In the simulation of reality we perceive and our brain is the simulator.
That's right, the reality you perceive is not actual reality but a visual representation of reality created by your brain. Your whole life you only ever perceive this simulation of reality.

 

[sophiecentaur]

The light itself is not actually visible.

That's a bit of a nonsense statement - unless you re-define the term 'visible' to mean something other than 'able to be seen'.
I have frequently made the point that the trivial models of our vision that are presented in School and later are pretty hopeless at describing what really is going on when we see things.
Colour perception is another field in which there is more BS talked than substantial fact.

 

[Furyan5]

What you call BS I interpret as a lack of comprehension. Not intentional on your part, but the effect is the same. For a layman to think visible light is visible, is understandable. For an intellectual to believe so is inexcusable. Light is the tool by which objects are made visible. It's detectable, through "touch" but light itself is not visible. The brain creates no visual representation of light. It creates colors, which are the interpretation of wavelength and brightness, which is the interpretation of amplitude. Objects become visible because they have contrasting colors and brightness in the visual representation our brain creates internally.

 

[sophiecentaur]

How the brain cares to 'visualise' things is a totally different issue from the fact that received light is used in many circumstances in order to perceive the world around us. Using a statement that 'visible is not visible' doesn't actually get us anywhere much. We see the light that enters our eyes (surely??). What light actually enters our eyes is determined by relatively simple Physics but what goes on after it reaches the retina is entirely subjective and still a bit of a mystery (i.e. it's what we make of the basic information). If, sometimes, we are aware of something and we choose to interpret it in terms of what it 'feels like' to touch then that doesn't imply that tangibility is the general system of perception. But, if you choose to re-define the word "touch' so that it fits that particular model then, fair enough. I don't see how it actually helps with the understanding of perception.
Basing an argument on an Oxymoron doesn't seem to achieve anything other than to grab the attention and make one 'think'. (Which has some justification, I guess.)

 

[Furyan5]

Ca

How the brain cares to 'visualise' things is a totally different issue from the fact that received light is used in many circumstances in order to perceive the world around us. Using a statement that 'visible is not visible' doesn't actually get us anywhere much. We see the light that enters our eyes (surely??). What light actually enters our eyes is determined by relatively simple Physics but what goes on after it reaches the retina is entirely subjective and still a bit of a mystery (i.e. it's what we make of the basic information). If, sometimes, we are aware of something and we choose to interpret it in terms of what it 'feels like' to touch then that doesn't imply that tangibility is the general system of perception. But, if you choose to re-define the word "touch' so that it fits that particular model then, fair enough. I don't see how it actually helps with the understanding of perception.
Basing an argument on an Oxymoron doesn't seem to achieve anything other than to grab the attention and make one 'think'. (Which has some justification, I guess.)

Can you see a ball? Does the ball "touch" you? Can you see the difference between light and a ball? One is detected, the other is perceived. I'm not redefining the word see. I'm pointing out that we don't visually perceive light. We detect it.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Ca
Can you see a ball? Does the ball "touch" you? Can you see the difference between light and a ball? One is detected, the other is perceived. I'm not redefining the word see. I'm pointing out that we don't visually perceive light. We detect it.

Hmm. I don't see that you can differentiate between the perception of an object due to the light that comes from it and the perception of a formless area of purple light, arriving from, say, a large fog bank, illuminated by a projector. Light from both is 'detected' and they are both 'perceived'. If you woke up to find yourself in a large white sphere, illuminated by red light, you would 'percieve' the red light.
It is true that you would feel unsatisfied with what you saw because your brain is constantly looking for patterns. You would be suffering under sensory deprivation and you could soon be 'seeing' red shapes - just to fill the lack of information in your image of your surroundings.
IMO you are drawing a line in an inappropriate place here. That's all.
PS We are replying to each other too fast - crossed messages. I must go outside and sort out where these mice are getting into our roof space. I how I can 'perceive' how they are getting in. lol

 

[Furyan5]

Hmm. I don't see that you can differentiate between the perception of an object due to the light that comes from it and the perception of a formless area of purple light, arriving from, say, a large fog bank, illuminated by a projector. Light from both is 'detected' and they are both 'perceived'. If you woke up to find yourself in a large white sphere, illuminated by red light, you would 'percieve' the red light.
It is true that you would feel unsatisfied with what you saw because your brain is constantly looking for patterns. You would be suffering under sensory deprivation and you could soon be 'seeing' red shapes - just to fill the lack of information in your image of your surroundings.
IMO you are drawing a line in an inappropriate place here. That's all.
PS We are replying to each other too fast - crossed messages. I must go outside and sort out where these mice are getting into our roof space. I how I can 'perceive' how they are getting in. lol

Why a fog bank? Why not a mirror? The image looks exactly like a real image. The difference is comprehension. We know there is only one orange and the other is a reflection.
As for the white sphere in "red" light, you would perceive a red sphere. Light itself is not red. It has a wavelength which elicits the visual sensation when our eyes detect it. The sphere appears white because it reflects all wavelengths of light. In the absense of other wavelengths, it reflects only the wavelength our brain interprets as red.
As for your mice problem, go inside the roof and look for "light". If you see "light", it means there's a hole.

 

[berkeman]

Thread closed for Moderation...

 

[jim mcnamara]

Thanks to the folks who participated. We have gone off track, so the thread is closed.