Unfortunately, for Polarized light, not much would change. We already can see Polarized light, and we exploit it for 3D movies. The newer non red-blue 3d Glasses work by filtering polarized light to get the different images to our eyes. You can however easily take off the 3D glasses and see the 2...
@MozerShmozer very true, we cant tell indeed, but there is a trick we can use to get a really good hint. Going back to 3d movies, we can in fact see what polarized light looks like, because we know it is polarized thanks to the 3D glasses. Its not all that different than normal light.
That's like saying colour-blind people can see everything non-colour blind people can see. Yes, technically, they can see all the light, too. But they still miss the additional colours.
Problem is, Polarized red light looks like regular red light @celtschk . You dont miss anything because there is no real difference. To be able to see the difference is to describe the color as horizontal or vertical, something which has no effect on what we actually see right now. Watch that youtube video i linked, Notice how nothing changes when you see only polarized light through the 3D Glasses. Colors do not change just because they are polarized.
@Ryan: And red-green blind people will find that they see no difference between the light seen through a red filter and the light seen through a green filter. Therefore according to your logic, people with normal sight should see no difference either.
@celtschk Well now you are just making stuff up. Polarization is not exclusive to one color. it is a property of waves like electromagnetic radiation. Polarized red light is still red, and to a normal human, there is no visible difference between the 2, weather you use a filter or not. The filter however can be used to prove it is polarized, and that is the only way we can tell with our eyes. Color filters are completely different things
We are not speaking about normal humans with filters. We are speaking about hypothetical humans who have polarization-dependent receptors. So just as some receptors fire for light of one wavelength and not for light of another, those receptors fire for light of one polarization and not light of another. And for colour-blind people, colour filters (of the right kind) are the exact same thing.
Note that in the end our visual cortex doesn't process physical properties of light; it processes the firing or not firing of different receptor types. We see spectra as colours because the receptors in our eyes give different signals for different frequencies. Therefore different frequencies give different qualities of sensation, which we call colour. If our receptors would be selective on polarization, we'd also have different perceptions for different polarizations.
The point is, it would be a new quality that's added to our visual perception. It would not look the same to us. If you would call that difference "a different colour" or something else is secondary (indeed, I consider it likely that polarization would be processed separately, as it has different characteristics when moving the head; so it would probably be a new visual quality besides colour. But the point is, it would not look the same. Which is all I'm saying.
We don't know what polarized light looks liek for someone who can see it. We cannot see the polarization. And that is analogous to how colour-blind people cannot see some colours, because they cannot distinguish the spectra that generate those different colours for normal-sighted people.
It probably would not be a different color, so much as a something like the Heat Haze, A distortion from the normal, Polarized in infinite directions light. After all, unpolarized light is really just light that is polarized in all directions.
What that means is not that it does not look the same, its that we dont actually see anything that new. Polarized light does not do much for us
"for Polarized light, not much would change" As i said,
And white light is just a mixture of all frequencies. So from that logic, colour should not be a new quality beyond brightness. But it undoubtedly is. I have no idea what a "Heat Haze" is. And agaibn, it is not what it looks like for us, who don't have the polarzation-dependent receptors.
The point is, we would get a different receptor activity pattern. And for percetion that is all that matters. Forget about the physical characteristics of light; they are not relevant any more after the receptors fired.
What i called Heat Haze is simply the distortion of light due to heat, primarily off asphalt and other Dark road surfaces. Its also found in Deserts, it blurs the things behind it, and can even work like a mirror.
As for what we would see, normal light, being polarized in all directions, would probably not do anything and we would not see any differences
Note also that light has no colour. Light has a spectrum and a polarization. It happens that our receptors can detect certain aspects of the spectrum, and our brain interprets the corresponding receptor patterns as colour. If our receptors would also respond to polarization, the braibn would also note those patterns and make a sensation from it. Oh, and it would not be any sort of distortion; I have no idea where you get that idea from.
Not all normal light is unpolarized; in particular, the sky has a specific polarization pattern that tells where the sun is, even if the sun itself is not visible.
the thing is, average light, light from lightbulbs, fire, and most other sources is naturally unpolarized, its not until things like the atmosphere interfere with it, and thats not a guarantee to polarize it
You. I quote (emphasis by me): "As for what we would see, normal light, being polarized in all directions, would probably not do anything and we would not see any differences"
most light we see is unpolarized, or only slightly polarized, not enough to actually mean anything
only polarization filters can actually nearly perfectly polarize light
i would assume water does do something as well, but im not versed in why the shrimp needs to see so many forms of EM, unlike almost everything else underwater
So please tell me: What is your point? Why do you bring the "normal" polarization up to begin with? If it's not all natural light, then I don't see how it is relevant. It might be relevant to the question whether it would be likely to evolve, but that was not the question here. The question was what we would see if we had the receptors for it, not whether we would develop those receptors in the first place.
For the zillionthtime: That was not the question. To repeat it again: That was not the thing which was asked in the question to which you wrote an answer. ANd I've stressed multiple times already that this was not the question. So please note that it was not the question. Got it now?
I did, and it still asks about polarized light, and i did answer about polarized light
So if you want to discuss infrared and ultraviolet light, then say so. As it stands, the topic of my answer is polarization
so if you are tryign to discuss anything else, then you need to say you changed topics
as it stands, you have only talked about polarization, and i have only been answering in regards to polarization
the edits made to teh question have diverged from teh origional question as time went on, and i was about to delete my answer because it was no longer relevant until you kept bring this stuff up
the question itslef is already in bad taste, since it asks specifically for polarization in the title, then talks about far more in the question, and then gets edited to emphasize everything.
Now, i have to go for a while, So if you want to continue anything, it will have to wait.
otherwise, the answer is gone and i won't be back here
Well, I was talking about perception of polarization all the time (I used colours only in analogies). But anyway, I don't have the feeling that the discussion leads to anything, so I'd suggest we stop here.
Discussion between Ryan and celtschk
Discussion between Ryan and celtschk