Genetics and Infrared vision...

[Elite Engineer]

So, snakes can see, or "sense" infrared vision, right? In a perfectly unethical world, could the gene that allows for picking up infrared light

 

be inserted into a human and allow them to see it?

 

~EE

[Endy0816]

Whole separate sense organ. Would likely require more than changing a single gene.

Edited November 9, 2015 by Endy0816

[Ophiolite]

So, snakes can see, or "sense" infrared vision, right? In a perfectly unethical world, could the gene that allows for picking up infrared light

 

be inserted into a human and allow them to see it?

 

~EE

What makes you think the ability to detect infrared is made possible by a single gene. I cannot conceive how that would be possible - granted I am rather slow on the uptake, so I may be missing something. However, I strongly suspect that several genes are responsible for the ability and - as Endy has pointed out - deliver this ability through a distinct organ.

[CharonY]

Well technically I could imagine that a IR-responsive chromophore in the eye could do the trick, assuming there is a mutation that causes them to absorb more efficiently in the IR range.. However, since our brain would perceive it as a different color it would pretty much screw up vision, especially when there are temp differentials, I guess.

[Elite Engineer]

Well technically I could imagine that a IR-responsive chromophore in the eye could do the trick, assuming there is a mutation that causes them to absorb more efficiently in the IR range.. However, since our brain would perceive it as a different color it would pretty much screw up vision, especially when there are temp differentials, I guess.

Yes, this is what I was looking for. Now that I think about it, it's most likley more than one gene that permits IR vision.

[Endy0816]

Meant to post this a bit ago...

 

 

This study resolves a long-standing question about the ability of humans to perceive near infrared radiation (IR) and identifies a mechanism driving human IR vision. A few previous reports and our expanded psychophysical studies here reveal that humans can detect IR at wavelengths longer than 1,000 nm and perceive it as visible light, a finding that has not received a satisfactory physical explanation. We show that IR light activates photoreceptors through a nonlinear optical process. IR light also caused photoisomerization of purified pigments and a model chromophore compound. These observations are consistent with our quantum mechanical model for the energetics of two-photon activation of rhodopsin. Thus, humans can perceive IR light via two-photon isomerization of visual pigment chromophores.

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/50/E5445.abstract

 

Still can't go out and hunt small mammals but no gene changing is required for you to see IR of a sort.

[cladking]

Meant to post this a bit ago...

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/50/E5445.abstract

 

Still can't go out and hunt small mammals but no gene changing is required for you to see IR of a sort.

 

 

I think some individuals can train themselves to see infrared. Indeed, higher frequencies are best "seen" with the palm of the hand.

 

Perhaps these signals tend to be intercepted by the reptilian brain.

[swansont]

I think some individuals can train themselves to see infrared. Indeed, higher frequencies are best "seen" with the palm of the hand.

 

Citation needed.

Meant to post this a bit ago...

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/50/E5445.abstract

 

Still can't go out and hunt small mammals but no gene changing is required for you to see IR of a sort.

 

Back when we were working with Cs, the lab-mates I had and I could vouch for the fact that you could see NIR at 852 nm. It's scary from a safety perspective, because the eye must be really inefficient at detecting it. High-intensity light appears dim, so there is no blink reflex in play.

[CharonY]

So if it is a two-photon effect the eye would respond as if it was of shorter wavelength (albeit at much lower efficiency). However with 852 this does not appear likely as it should be around the UV range? I wonder what else may be the reason, considering that multiple people were able to perceive it.

Edited November 17, 2015 by CharonY

[swansont]

So if it is a two-photon effect the eye would respond as if it was of shorter wavelength (albeit at much lower efficiency). However with 852 this does not appear likely as it should be around the UV range? I wonder what else may be the reason, considering that multiple people were able to perceive it.

 

852 was definitely not a two-photon effect. It looked red.

[Endy0816]

I was thinking different colors might occur depending on the setup. Don't know much about it but seems possible.

 

Is there any safe way to run a test? I know blindness is a concern with different classes of lasers.

[John Cuthber]

Just a thought.

Good IR detectors are cooled to improve their sensitivity (Strictly, their S/N ratio).

If you want to "see" the IR from, for example, a person's body heat. you will have a much better chance if the detector is cooler than that person.

Good luck evolving into a cold-blooded life form.

[andrewcellini]

Indeed, higher frequencies are best "seen" with the palm of the hand.

infrared has a lower frequency than red (in the visible spectrum).

[cladking]

infrared has a lower frequency than red (in the visible spectrum).

 

D'oh.

 

Thank you. I'm not used to thinking in terms of wavelenghts.