I'm not sure how compressing IR photons into a human's existing visual range is supposed to "improve" anything, let alone grant 'super-vision'? We are talking about light that's not particularly useful anyway generating noise and clouding our vision as regular red or green light for...what exactly? This all sounds like hype nonsense.
Not sure if I'm missing something. These sound like fluorescent dye particles?
Don't such molecules emit light diffusely, i.e. not correlated to the direction of excitation? It also must be doing multi-photon fluorescence in order to bump up to higher (visible) frequencies. What is the point of putting it in a contact lens when it won't really echo the light field arriving at the lens?
I also recall that infrared photography requires a significant adjustment of focus compared to visual light due to chromatic aberration. Would it even be possible for an IR-sensitive eye to accommodate this difference in focus?
On the other hand, an efficient upconverting fluorescent dye could be embedded in an imaging screen with appropriate optics to make passive IR scope?
This is super cool, I've wondered if this wort of thing could be possible and I guess it is. The applications given are funny though. I can't think of any applications either, but "helping people with color-blindness" reads like the ol' search and rescue excuse [1]. I think they're talking about shifting colors around so less color is perceived in the wavelengths they can't see?
It's pretty nifty though because besides changing the wavelength it must also preserve the exact direction of each photon. Without the correct light field you'd see nothing.
It was a plastic card that you could place under a light to "charge" and then if you aimed a remote control at it and pressed a button - it would glow red.
It would kick up infrared passively into the visible light spectrum.
Of yeah i remember those. It was great to check if a remote was working.
These days I just use my phone camera. The IR filter isn't perfect and IR leds are tons brighter than visible ones so if you point it right at the camera you can easily see it.
While this sounds cool, the issues it raises are not.
Many people are unaware that the wavelengths of light in certain ranges, which include both the near UV (N-UV, violet/blue zones), and the N-IR have biochemical interactions, and blocking this through use of a contact lens has been linked (afaik) to myopia, which have many different risk factors.
I can only find references to the opposite: that blocking blue light might -- emphasis on "might" -- be help prevent myopia, not that it causes myopia?
The foundational work was done by Fritz Hollwich, a German Opthalmologist in the 1970s. Supplementary work was done by John Nash Ott in the same time period when he had numerous issues with time-lapse displays with plants dying under artificial light. Together they show environmental light greatly impacts both plant kingdoms and animal kingdom species.
Many studies since then have been done, though some are not translated to English.
The high energy near N-UV (370nm and below) from common white LEDs may cause retinopothy. Individuals who received lasik treatments between 2000 and 2009 (iirc) had their lens replaced with a lens that blocked NIR/IR.
Incidents of macular degeneration are higher in such groups, along with myopia.
Prior to 1998 blue-light LEDs were not manufactured, and NIR light leakage weren't issues. There are demographic studies for countries that have high exposure to digital LED-based signage where light pollution is an issue. The incidence rates in school children in those regions are dramatic (~70% iirc); Japan was one such country that studied this.
The unfortunate thing is a lot of this research isn't available to the general public because it is paywalled. Its also not an area that has received a lot of funding compared to other areas.
The TL;DR is there's a biochemical switch in the eye that travels through to the brain which controls metabolic hormones and gene expression based upon the light you are exposed to, and it is turned on or off based on the levels of natural sunlight you are exposed to and the time of day.
There are also a number of chemicals within the eye itself that act as light traps/charge signaling, as well as melatonin based specks which have biochemical reactions with UV, and reflect UV (to a lesser degree).
That should get you started in finding references.
I might be misreading what you are saying but it still sounds like exactly the opposite? (As in, that exposure to blue light is linked with myopia, not that blocking blue light is linked with myopia.)
FWIW, I assume I am simply misunderstanding your use of "linked to" (which I thought is only ever used to establish a correlation, not an anti-correlation; like, "new study shows red meat linked to hear disease" would be awkward wording if one meant "prevents").
What is most of interest to me in this research is that having a handle on stable and bio-safe chemistry that is reactive in near-visible spectra,
allows for a future wherein that chemistry is baked into additional cones,
allowing for polychromacy,
which might conceivably result in new qualia ("colors as they are perceived by the viewer" as in classic dorm-room arguments about whether one person's blue is another's red).
It'd be nice for our civilization to persist long enough, and to live long enough, to not just be around when that happens but have opportunity to try it out.
Neural implants are going to open up even wider possibilities dramatically.
Given how fast things are changing, one can imagine that digital visual feed implants, providing conscious control of wide spectrum sensitivity, won't be so far off.
Beyond tetrachromacy, think "Kilochromacy". Whatever that would be like! (A few short neural link, and cognitive amplification, generations in.)
I'm not sure how compressing IR photons into a human's existing visual range is supposed to "improve" anything, let alone grant 'super-vision'? We are talking about light that's not particularly useful anyway generating noise and clouding our vision as regular red or green light for...what exactly? This all sounds like hype nonsense.
Not sure if I'm missing something. These sound like fluorescent dye particles?
Don't such molecules emit light diffusely, i.e. not correlated to the direction of excitation? It also must be doing multi-photon fluorescence in order to bump up to higher (visible) frequencies. What is the point of putting it in a contact lens when it won't really echo the light field arriving at the lens?
I also recall that infrared photography requires a significant adjustment of focus compared to visual light due to chromatic aberration. Would it even be possible for an IR-sensitive eye to accommodate this difference in focus?
On the other hand, an efficient upconverting fluorescent dye could be embedded in an imaging screen with appropriate optics to make passive IR scope?
This is super cool, I've wondered if this wort of thing could be possible and I guess it is. The applications given are funny though. I can't think of any applications either, but "helping people with color-blindness" reads like the ol' search and rescue excuse [1]. I think they're talking about shifting colors around so less color is perceived in the wavelengths they can't see?
[1] https://xkcd.com/2128/
It's pretty nifty though because besides changing the wavelength it must also preserve the exact direction of each photon. Without the correct light field you'd see nothing.
I think of the Radio Shack passive infrared card.
It was a plastic card that you could place under a light to "charge" and then if you aimed a remote control at it and pressed a button - it would glow red.
It would kick up infrared passively into the visible light spectrum.
Of yeah i remember those. It was great to check if a remote was working.
These days I just use my phone camera. The IR filter isn't perfect and IR leds are tons brighter than visible ones so if you point it right at the camera you can easily see it.
How can people publish articles like this and not even show some type of mockup of what it might look like?
Is there any reason this needs to be in contact lenses rather than glasses? I assume it's very dim if not in direct contact with your eye.
While this sounds cool, the issues it raises are not.
Many people are unaware that the wavelengths of light in certain ranges, which include both the near UV (N-UV, violet/blue zones), and the N-IR have biochemical interactions, and blocking this through use of a contact lens has been linked (afaik) to myopia, which have many different risk factors.
I can only find references to the opposite: that blocking blue light might -- emphasis on "might" -- be help prevent myopia, not that it causes myopia?
The foundational work was done by Fritz Hollwich, a German Opthalmologist in the 1970s. Supplementary work was done by John Nash Ott in the same time period when he had numerous issues with time-lapse displays with plants dying under artificial light. Together they show environmental light greatly impacts both plant kingdoms and animal kingdom species.
Many studies since then have been done, though some are not translated to English.
The high energy near N-UV (370nm and below) from common white LEDs may cause retinopothy. Individuals who received lasik treatments between 2000 and 2009 (iirc) had their lens replaced with a lens that blocked NIR/IR.
Incidents of macular degeneration are higher in such groups, along with myopia.
Prior to 1998 blue-light LEDs were not manufactured, and NIR light leakage weren't issues. There are demographic studies for countries that have high exposure to digital LED-based signage where light pollution is an issue. The incidence rates in school children in those regions are dramatic (~70% iirc); Japan was one such country that studied this.
The unfortunate thing is a lot of this research isn't available to the general public because it is paywalled. Its also not an area that has received a lot of funding compared to other areas.
The TL;DR is there's a biochemical switch in the eye that travels through to the brain which controls metabolic hormones and gene expression based upon the light you are exposed to, and it is turned on or off based on the levels of natural sunlight you are exposed to and the time of day.
There are also a number of chemicals within the eye itself that act as light traps/charge signaling, as well as melatonin based specks which have biochemical reactions with UV, and reflect UV (to a lesser degree).
That should get you started in finding references.
I might be misreading what you are saying but it still sounds like exactly the opposite? (As in, that exposure to blue light is linked with myopia, not that blocking blue light is linked with myopia.)
FWIW, I assume I am simply misunderstanding your use of "linked to" (which I thought is only ever used to establish a correlation, not an anti-correlation; like, "new study shows red meat linked to hear disease" would be awkward wording if one meant "prevents").
Three month old article.
What is most of interest to me in this research is that having a handle on stable and bio-safe chemistry that is reactive in near-visible spectra,
allows for a future wherein that chemistry is baked into additional cones,
allowing for polychromacy,
which might conceivably result in new qualia ("colors as they are perceived by the viewer" as in classic dorm-room arguments about whether one person's blue is another's red).
It'd be nice for our civilization to persist long enough, and to live long enough, to not just be around when that happens but have opportunity to try it out.
Neural implants are going to open up even wider possibilities dramatically.
Given how fast things are changing, one can imagine that digital visual feed implants, providing conscious control of wide spectrum sensitivity, won't be so far off.
Beyond tetrachromacy, think "Kilochromacy". Whatever that would be like! (A few short neural link, and cognitive amplification, generations in.)