Science questions not worth a thread I: I'm a moron!

Status
Not open for further replies.
How might Earth animals see the night sky? If we could view the night sky and look at the stars and/or planets through the eyes of an animal, both day animals and nocturnal ones, what might it look like? Do animals even see in different wavelengths than humans? Or would the night sky appear the same to them as it already does to us?

For example, how 'bout a domestic cat? How might they see it?
 
How might Earth animals see the night sky? If we could view the night sky and look at the stars and/or planets through the eyes of an animal, both day animals and nocturnal ones, what might it look like?
They might see more or less stars than us, depending on how sensitive their eyes are.

Do animals even see in different wavelengths than humans?
They do, but I seriously hope you're not suggesting they can see a simpler version of what our non-visible light observatories can detect. Consider why we have to place these detectors in orbit or why we have to do special procedures such as cooling (infrared).
 
Also, while some species can see at more wavelengths than humans, as far as I know these are mostly UV and near-IR, so relatively close to what we can see. There are no X-ray vision animals or anything.
 
Well, that would depend upon the animal.

Animals with a tapetum lucidum can see in much dimmer light than we can. You know how a deer's eyes shine in headlights, or your cats' shine in photographs? That's from a feature called the tapetum lucidum -- it's different than red eye in human photographs though. The tapetum lucidum is a retro reflector (a reflector that sends photons back in the same direction they came -- stop signs are coated in retro reflectors) so it gives the retina a second or third opportunity to capture a photon that would otherwise go undetected in animals lacking a tapetum lucidum.

The retro reflecting properties are really important though. If the photon didn't return on the same path it took, the photon would hit a part of the retina that was focused on receiving light from another direction. As a result, the animal would lose a lot of sharpness in vision.

Anyway, as I understand it, this allows for an animal like a cat to see light 6 times fainter than a human. I imagine that includes the night sky -- animals with good night vision probably see a much fuller sky, akin to leaving the shutter on your camera open for a longer exposure.

I should clarify though that I'm speaking about animals with good binocular vision -- animals with eyes that are focused in front of them like us. Horses have a very wide field of vision, but are unable to focus like we are.

Animals do see in different ways than humans do. Humans have 3 classes of cones: red green and blue. All the colours we see are a combination of 3 cones detecting in those wavelengths. You might have often heard dogs refereed to as being colour blind, but it's not monochromatic (all grey) colour blindness. Rather, they only have 2 classes of cones to sense different wavelengths of light.

Dogs see the pictures on the right:



Most mammals are dichromatic, like dogs. The ancestor to most mammals was trichromatic, as are most reptiles alive today. Losing trichromatic vision enables better night vision, which is why most mammals today remain dichromatic: for most of our evolutionary history, we were nocturnal animals. Some primates, such as great apes and some New World monkeys have regained trichromatic vision. Some marsupials never lost it.

This leads to one of the coolest things about sight: you can be more sensitive than trichromatic. Some turtles have 5 classes of colour-sensitive cones. Very rarely, some human women have 4 classes -- what their vision would look like is impossible to describe, but those women would see the world differently than you and I. In the same sense, a turtle watching our TV, which is based on RBG colour, would think it looks as dull as black and white TV looks to us.

And lastly, yes, some animals see different wavelengths all together. If you take photographs of flowers in ultraviolet, you will see strange patterns on the pedals that insects can see. Those patterns are invisible to us. Those insects can't see what we consider red though. Our red is infrared to them. Cool, no?

It gets cooler! If you project a rainbow on a wall, and ask people to mark where the rainbow starts and ends, you will get different marks. I did this in highschool, and people were reporting the rainbow ending past what I could make out.
 
They do, but I seriously hope you're not suggesting they can see a simpler version of what our non-visible light observatories can detect. Consider why we have to place these detectors in orbit or why we have to do special procedures such as cooling (infrared).
I was thinking more along the lines of perhaps seeing a more complex array of colors and/or shades. :dunno:
Well, that would depend upon the animal.

Animals with a tapetum lucidum can see in much dimmer light than we can. You know how a deer's eyes shine in headlights, or your cats' shine in photographs? That's from a feature called the tapetum lucidum -- it's different than red eye in human photographs though. The tapetum lucidum is a retro reflector (a reflector that sends photons back in the same direction they came -- stop signs are coated in retro reflectors) so it gives the retina a second or third opportunity to capture a photon that would otherwise go undetected in animals lacking a tapetum lucidum.

The retro reflecting properties are really important though. If the photon didn't return on the same path it took, the photon would hit a part of the retina that was focused on receiving light from another direction. As a result, the animal would lose a lot of sharpness in vision.

Anyway, as I understand it, this allows for an animal like a cat to see light 6 times fainter than a human. I imagine that includes the night sky -- animals with good night vision probably see a much fuller sky, akin to leaving the shutter on your camera open for a longer exposure.

I should clarify though that I'm speaking about animals with good binocular vision -- animals with eyes that are focused in front of them like us. Horses have a very wide field of vision, but are unable to focus like we are.

Animals do see in different ways than humans do. Humans have 3 classes of cones: red green and blue. All the colours we see are a combination of 3 cones detecting in those wavelengths. You might have often heard dogs refereed to as being colour blind, but it's not monochromatic (all grey) colour blindness. Rather, they only have 2 classes of cones to sense different wavelengths of light.

Dogs see the pictures on the right:



Most mammals are dichromatic, like dogs. The ancestor to most mammals was trichromatic, as are most reptiles alive today. Losing trichromatic vision enables better night vision, which is why most mammals today remain dichromatic: for most of our evolutionary history, we were nocturnal animals. Some primates, such as great apes and some New World monkeys have regained trichromatic vision. Some marsupials never lost it.

This leads to one of the coolest things about sight: you can be more sensitive than trichromatic. Some turtles have 5 classes of colour-sensitive cones. Very rarely, some human women have 4 classes -- what their vision would look like is impossible to describe, but those women would see the world differently than you and I. In the same sense, a turtle watching our TV, which is based on RBG colour, would think it looks as dull as black and white TV looks to us.

And lastly, yes, some animals see different wavelengths all together. If you take photographs of flowers in ultraviolet, you will see strange patterns on the pedals that insects can see. Those patterns are invisible to us. Those insects can't see what we consider red though. Our red is infrared to them. Cool, no?

It gets cooler! If you project a rainbow on a wall, and ask people to mark where the rainbow starts and ends, you will get different marks. I did this in highschool, and people were reporting the rainbow ending past what I could make out.
Could some men have 4 classes as well, or is it exclusively women? Regardless, pretty neat though. Thanks. :)
 
That really was awesome! :goodjob:

Googling "4 cones women vision" (not in quotes in Google) gave some nice pages about it.

Spoiler :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy[/URL said:
]One study suggested that 2–3% of the world's women might have the kind of fourth cone that lies between the standard red and green cones, giving, theoretically, a significant increase in color differentiation


 
:lol: that's cultural, I suspect . . .

Question: If, due to some human or mechanical error, the Apollo astronauts had shot past the moon rather than going into lunar orbit, would they eventually get captured by the gravity of the moon/earth/sun and either enter an orbit or crash into something, or would there be a possibility of them leaving the solar system?
 
I assume they would eventually fall into a solar orbit or run into something. Once past the moon Earth's gravity would not be enough to pull them into an Earth orbit.
 
I also perceive the two sets of pictures as nearly identical.

I didn't think our ancestors had trichromancy. The dichromatic is so common, and the trichromancy of the apes is so obviously 'recently evolved' with convergent evolution, that I'm honestly a little surprised.

Mice have a neat divergence of the 'blue (S)' and 'Red (M)' cones in their eyes; these are the cones that we use to determine brightness.



I've made no secret of my hope to have my color-blindness cured via retroviral insertion of new opsin genes into my retinas. Now I sometimes think that I should 'settle' for normal human colors!
 
:lol: that's cultural, I suspect . . .

Question: If, due to some human or mechanical error, the Apollo astronauts had shot past the moon rather than going into lunar orbit, would they eventually get captured by the gravity of the moon/earth/sun and either enter an orbit or crash into something, or would there be a possibility of them leaving the solar system?

0% chance they would leave the solar system. They weren't going fast enough.

What would have happened other than that though gets tricky. They could have escaped the Moon and gone into a seperate orbit around sun that is slightly past the Earth-Moon system's orbit. They would have died out there, but eventually the interaction between their ship and the Earth-Moon system would cause it to fall out of it's own independent orbit and crashed on either the Earth or the Moon. The Earth clears out all debris in it's orbital path - this is the definition of what makes a planet.

If they had been pointing in the general direction of the Earth when their rocket burned, then they would have gone straight in for a collision.
 
:lol: that's cultural, I suspect . . .

Question: If, due to some human or mechanical error, the Apollo astronauts had shot past the moon rather than going into lunar orbit, would they eventually get captured by the gravity of the moon/earth/sun and either enter an orbit or crash into something, or would there be a possibility of them leaving the solar system?

They'd return to Earth.
If there where no more burns after the TLI the spacecraft would have reentered Earths atmosphere after going to round the moon and back to Earth. This was done so your scenario wouldn't happen if something went wrong on the way to the moon. Still they could've messed up their burn as long as the craft stays under 11km/s it'd return to Earth. What I dont know is how much error is allowed to still get a free return trajectory

Free Return Trajectory
 
I doubt that the scientists launched the spacecraft with any chance of a free return trajectory--I suspect that would put the astronauts too far from the moon to attempt a landing. At the altitude Apollo had to be for the landing to occur, the spacecraft would spiral into the surface without propulsion.

---

Hey guys, I have a question.

Say that you're standing 1 lightyear from a button that you want to press. Now, say that there's a wooden plank 1 lightyear long extending from you to the button, almost, but not quite touching it.

Now, I know that pressure waves travel at the speed of sound through a material (so if you pushed the plank into the button, it would take some thousands of years to reach the button).

But what if you accelerated the plank of wood instantaneously from 0 m/s to .999% of the speed of light. In an instant. Would that mean that the plank is accelerating faster than the pressure wave can travel through the material? What would happen, I mean, would the plank like warp in on itself or some crazy crap? This is driving me insane.
 
Assuming you can build something the full 1 light year length of the plank, and design the plank to respond to your force of choice and be durable enough, you can apply a very strong force to the full length of the plank simultaneously, from the point of view of the stationary plank. Now it's unlikely you'd be able to apply the force perfectly evenly and timely, so you could get all kinds of warping or even nuclear fusion from that, but ignoring that, the plank just accelerates to the designated speed. Then creates a nuclear explosion at the location of the button.

Reminds me of throwing a baseball at 90% of the speed of light.
 
I was thinking more along the lines of perhaps seeing a more complex array of colors and/or shades. :dunno:

All they're going to see for non-visible wavelengths are either terrestrial or solar emissions.
 
I doubt that the scientists launched the spacecraft with any chance of a free return trajectory--I suspect that would put the astronauts too far from the moon to attempt a landing. At the altitude Apollo had to be for the landing to occur, the spacecraft would spiral into the surface without propulsion.

You didn't read the link I provided, did you?

A free-return trajectory may be the initial trajectory to allow a safe return in the event of a systems failure; this was applied in the Apollo 8, Apollo 10, and Apollo 11 lunar missions. In such a case a free return to a suitable reentry situation is more useful than returning to near the Earth, but then needing propulsion anyway to prevent moving away from it again. Since all went well these Apollo missions did not have to take advantage of the free return, and inserted into orbit upon arrival at the Moon.

Also why would you spiral into the surface if you go below a certain altitude? There is nothing to decelerate you. As long as you aren't on a collision course with the surface to begin with you end up in space again after passing the moon.
 
Could some men have 4 classes as well, or is it exclusively women? Regardless, pretty neat though. Thanks. :)

Possible but highly improbable, baring some unusual chromosomal disorders like men born XXY. Women have the potential to have 4 classes of cones for the same reason men are far more likely to be colourblind: men only have one X chromosome, whereas women have two.

There are three opsin genes correlating to the 3 classes of cones: red green and blue. Red and green are both found on the X chromosome, whereas the one for blue is found among the autosomes (non-sex chromosomes). The reason that colourblindness is far more common in men is that if we inherit a bad copy of a red or a green opsin gene from our mother, our father hasn't given us a copy of an X chromosome to serve as backup.

A woman with tetrachromatic vision does not have a whole new gene for the 4th class of cone. Rather, she has the same RGB genes most humans have, and a mutated (but still functional -- just a different sensitivity than standard) R or G on her second X chromosome. This does raise the possibility of a really rare woman actually being petrachromatic: she inherits a normal red and green gene from one parent, but a mutated red and green from the other.

I should clarify that having an extra cone doesn't mean you see further into the light spectrum. If you take myself and El_Mach, we'll both roughly agree on where a rainbow starts and ends, despite him having one fewer classes of cones than myself. In the same sense, a woman with one more type of cone than myself would still see the same wavelengths of light: but like myself and El_Mach, we would see the rainbow itself differently. This is because despite their names, each type of cone actually detects all light, but the rate it fires is tuned to specific wavelengths. So when I look at a blue wall, my blue cones are going, "wow, that's a lot of blue" but the red and green cones are also firing: green more than red and green a lot less than blue. The information of all 3 signals is combined in the brain to see blue.

So to get back to your question, ignoring the men born XXY, tetrachromatic vision would require a whole new duplication event (which is what gave us the third class of cone in the first place), not a mere mutation. Basically, since placental mammals lost colour vision, we have only regained it a few times in our evolutionary history. The chance that any male would be so fortunate as to have it happen to him sounds very low.
 
Any particular evolutionary reason opsin genes would be on the X chromosome? Or is it just one of those quirks of our genome?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom