There are of course some things that we would now be able to see, like the trails from mouse wee (mice are continuously incontinent) that some birds of prey can track. It might also be like having a continuous blacklight which might prompt some more cleaning of bed linen…
Possibly…
Often wondered if colour blindness has a spectrum of some kind (Even clarity)? I’ve not googled this but is so it might suggest people’s agreed notions on colour can differ
Yes, there are different types of colour blindness. “Red-green” is comparatively common.
I struggle to differentiate between (what others allege to be) many shades of blue and grey.
This is apparently quite rare, although as superpowers go, it feels like a pretty rubbish one.
Booo!
Except in reading music from a disc based format?
Incidentally, the best description I have ever heard of perfect pitch is that it is like not being colourblind. A note is a C sharp because it just is, like a colour is red because it just is.
The mapping of colour perception onto measured wavelength is not very ‘even’ in that the colours aren’t evenly spaced along the spectrum:
So at the red end there’s a large range of wavelengths all of which look pretty much the same red colour. As we reduce the wavelength though we quickly pass through orange (blink and you’ll miss it !) and into yellow and that doesn’t last long either. Further along there’s green (about as broad as yellow and orange added together) and then blue which starts to become purple pretty quickly. I guess there are evolutionary reasons why this mapping suits homo but I’ve no idea what they might be.
My paternal grandfather refused to believe he was colour blind despite doing Isihara tests. I have him to thank for the recessive gene.
Indeed, they often look different, and a great many fluoresce to some extent - often highlighting the key structures that need fertilisation, nature’s ‘tramp-stamp’…
The one we’re all taught about in school is hedge bindweed - currently in flower here - which looks white to human eyes, but when blacklit has strong ‘landing-pad’ markings for the benefit, chiefly, of bumble bees - here illustrated with a pink variant established in the US, with the hue shifted to the blue you’d see under UV:
Usual variant -
Interestingly, a few flowering plants also manage to actively emit infra-red, usually ones that flower at night or in dark forested understories, and which often have otherwise extremely inconspicuous inflorescences. My google-fu is weak today, so I can’t find an example.
Another example - but one that’s harder to explain - is the colour patterning in the shells of many molluscs: in many, the colour is hidden beneath a layer of chitinous material called the periostracum, yet even in closely related species there may be no pattern, no perisotracum, or the pattern may also be included in the periostracum as well!
These patterns are always more vivid in UV - even in species which live at water depths far below which any wavelength of light can reach. Furthermore, although the periostracum doesn’t survive being fossilised, and nor indeed do the visible-light colour patterns in the shell, yet if you hold a (e.g.) 160 million year old fossil gastropod or bivalve under a good strong source of UV light - the colour pattern sometimes reappears:
Some molluscs in which the colour pattern is always visible clearly derive benefit from normal or disruption camouflage, e.g. -
And it may also have value for mate selection - i.e. avoiding wasteful attempts to breed with closely-related, visually-similar but genetically-incompatible species.
But why this is hidden in some, yet is persistently visible in so profound a way as to be incorporated into the very structure of the shell in a fossilisable way hasn’t (TTBOMK) been adequately explained yet.
…and I’ve banged-on too much again…
The learning curve is toothsome today, ADHD prohibits further digestion pre nap but excellent show chaps. Another trowel of AA cement in the foundation of forum fact - If you even say laser on here all kinds of interesting shit is illuminated.
Did someone mention Laser? 
Please, bang on some more, bang on like the elder in a Platonic relationship, IF PALEONTOLOGY BE THE FOOD OF LOVE BANG ON…
Here’s a nice explanation I found:
The Royal Institution has a great youtube channel 
That one of the right said Fred’s is playing bass on this.
It’s pretty good. Two things though:
He’s technically correct in saying that purple doesn’t exist. But that’s because of the way he’s defined purple. Violet exists (it’s at one end of the spectrum) and we can see that. It’s distinctly different from blue. If you define purple to be the colour between red and blue without going via green then sure, that doesn’t exist.
He says at the start you can’t mix photons together. “You can’t take a blue photon and a green photon and mix them together to get some other colour”. But you can. Here’s a slightly annoying Canadian guy doing it (he gets to that stage at 5:30 in the video)
We used to do that sort of stuff (harmonics, sum and difference frequency generation, optical parametric generation) all the time at work. In fact I owned a laser made by HighQ (in the sense that I’d bought it for my lab, but I paid for it with CERN’s money). The Canadian guy is using the word purple differently from the RI guy. CanadaMan is using it interchangeably with the word violet.
Waking up from a nap to this is glorious
Krusatodon my arse, that’s a Womble
No, not purple, it’s violet. Purple doesn’t exist. Go to the back of the class Smithers 
As others here have said, people on this forum never cease to surprise and delight me with the range and depth of their knowledge. Fossils, buses, lasers funded by CERN, classical music labels, …
