On Nothing in a void.

Again,

www.reference.com › Science › Colors

Subjective observation has nothing to do with it. Objective measurement of the mathematical values determine the color's place in the visible spectrum. All other colors than the three primary colors are mixtures of at least two colors.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And why would that be so? These receptors are sensitive to the three "primary" colors, which allows us to process all other colors in the visible spectrum, because all other colors are mixtures of two or three primary colors.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Prove that I misunderstand Tegmark.
And I find it odd that at first, in your mind, Tegmark doesn't have a clue, now you you are arguing that , "at least" he "understood the physics of it all". So Tegmark is a charlatan who knows what he is talking about?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And how does that prove I am doing the "hasty" reading?

 

On what basis are you making that sweeping statement?

I have provided copious amounts of citations and links to the entire articles and been chided for offering too much information which support my POV.
By your own admission you do not feel inclined to go and hunt for it. Well, I did and you reject it out of hand. This does not help your argument, which in any case mainly consists of ad hominem, rather than informative discussion on the subject.

 

Quick, (without looking at the chart) what is the color of 495 nm?

I never claimed that. We have receptors that are sensitive to the three primary colors. Our brains are able to process these three colors into all the range of colors in visible spectrum.

That is a false representation. All colors, hues, and shades other that Red, Yellow, and Blue consist of three frequencies. These frequencies do not lie "in between" the frequencies of other colors, they are compound mixtures of frequencies. That's why a pixel consists of three fequency numbers.

Is a frequency length not a part of a wave function?

False. First, all EM radiations ARE wave functions of which humans can observe only those frequencies of wave functions in the human "visible spectrum"
Second, many organisms other than humans are able to perceive colors. In fact some organisms can see colors outside of the human visible spectrum.
They just don't have names for colors, as humans do. That does not mean they cannot "experience" them.
As to "moving the goal posts", I am not moving the goal posts, I am looking at the goalposts from different perspectives, an ability you seem to have problems with.

p.s. no need to bother responding, I already know your answer.

 

On the basis that you seem to have initially failed to grasp the concept. I took you something like 40 posts to come up with the 3 fundamental frequencies (and even then, you first gave 6 ranges, before goes for red, green, and blue).

Not for that particular statement.

I have never accused you of that.

You are the one making the claim, the burden of proof is on you.

Where?

Please stop lying; I did no such thing.

Actually, it does. You have provided no evidence or citations, so all you got is an assertion. Assertions can be dismissed out of hand.

If you feel I've committed an ad hominem, feel free to contact the moderation staff.

It is you who, for about 40 posts, didn't answer a simple question. Please look in the mirror.

 

It wasn't a question that you didn't know the answer to yourself. Thus it was a test if I knew something that's being taught in HS (at least in Holland), and now you have added a time limit for me to answer the test question, regardless of how many posts I devoted to replying to posts from other members in between.
I'm sorry if you feel neglected. But I did answer your question (eventually), and that's what counts. No?

 

False. I still don't know the answer to the original question: I don't know the three fundamental frequencies. But about 40 posts later, you moved the goalposts, and answered a different question, thus strongly suggesting you know your original statement was wrong.

Well, seems like I passed the test and you failed it then.

How about you answer questions in the first post in which you address them? How about you don't spend 40 posts ignoring an important, direct question that's asked?

I was merely showing that you had ample opportunity to give an answer to such a simple question.

I'm not, so don't be.

Except that, as I've pointed out multiple times now, you didn't actually answer the original question. And that is what counts.

 

Actually I gave the answer already in my post # 203 That was 66 post ago. Oh, for clarity, I am not counting this post.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Set the RGB to "white"
http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/col-mix/index.html

 

Where on that website can I read off the values of the frequencies in Hz (or wavelengths in nm)? I can't find them.

 

Well you must be a terrible teacher then....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That's why I later gave all the colors in the visible spectrum and their properties, precisely because that original (very interesting) link did not specifically address the values of all the wavelengths of the (visible spectrum by humans) and their associated mathematical properties such as, "wavelengths in nm", frequencies in THz", and "photon energies".

It's all there, if only you had looked at the links I provided, instead of accusing me of not citing references.

 

Do you really think that source is talking proper physics? From a physics perspective, it is bunk. It is how humans perceive colour, as both I and NotEinstein have been saying.

You haven't thought properly- i.e. scientifically - about this. You yourself have quoted a table, giving the frequency and wavelength ranges of light of various colours, which quite clearly demonstrates that light of different colours cannot be physically made of mixtures of others.

Take the emission from a sodium street lamp and look at it through a spectrometer, so you can can determine its wavelength. It is a doublet (a pair of closely spaced lines) in the yellow, with wavelengths of 589 and 589.6 nm. They do not split into a green part and a red part.

You may have come across Planck's Relation E=hν. This tells you the energy of a photon is given by its frequency, multiplied by Planck's constant, h. How could that possibly make any sense at all if a yellow photon was a "mixture" of a red one and a green one?

In fact the sodium D lines (as they are called) are caused by a hot sodium atom in an excited state emitting a photon as its outermost electron drops down from the 3p orbital to the 3s ground state orbital, losing energy, which is given off as light. (There are 2 lines because this electron can have 2 energy values in the 3p, depending on whether it spins in the same direction at its orbital momentum or against it.) The energy gaps involved are exact and photons with precise wavelengths are the result. They are not red or green or somehow made up of other colours in any way. More here, if you have the appetite for it: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/sodzee.html

Time to put aside the stage lights, or the painter's palette, and do some physics!

 

Tegmark is a trained physicist, nobody would dispute that. But sadly, being a trained physicist does not stop someone engaging in unwarranted metaphysical assertions, changing his name to make it stand out more, and capitalising on the resulting publicity (and book sales). You really do need allow for some nuances in people's arguments, you know. Arguing like an idiot does you no favours.

Tegmark, being a trained physicist, will not have made any claim that contradicts 6th form physics. You on the other hand, have made such claims. Ergo, you have misunderstood Tegmark.

 

Where have I said anything about moving goalposts? I think you are confusing me with Not Einstein.

But you are talking crap here. A pixel is a way of representing colours to the human eye. TV screens etc use a 3 colour system of phosphor dots or LEDs to make the human eye perceive a full range of colour. They do this by exploiting the way the human optical system perceives colour.

None of this tells you anything useful whatsoever about the physics of light.

 

Whut?

 

I understand, but then he does have some strong support, either expressed by practising cosmologists or by implication of scientific hypotheses such as say, CDT (causal dynamical triangulation).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation
Sounds fundamentally mathematical to me.

Oh, I certainly try to find a sometimes poorly nuanced but fundamental implication in what others say. It is essential when the poster speaks another language and needs to use a translator, which sometimes distorts the sentence and does not accurately represents what the poster is trying to say.

When the answer or counter argument is very nuanced, if I can still understand the narrative, I feel that I have learned something and I am grateful to the knowledgeable person taking time to correct any salient errors in my presentation, and indeed that may include terminology. I don't mind in the least to be corrected, as long as it is done via "constructive criticism".

I certainly do not claim to speak from my own authority or deeply nuanced understanding of a subject, although it is satisfying to occasionally find a mainstream confirmation of my intuitive interpretation of natural phenomena.

 

Jolly good, so can you quote the passage or passages in Tegmark's writing that gave you this notion of colours being "wavefunctions" of mixed primary colours? And then we can -perhaps - get to the bottom of all this.

 

True, because it is a hue produced by the combination of two yellows, which is a primary color and cannot be achieved by mixing of other colors.