the real benefit of this novel ingénu's idea is maybe some sort of frictionless lubricant? the stuff that keeps the power stations spinning on Arrakis, yo....
Sure, there is no question that electromagnetic radiation comes in a broad range of frequencies, and eyes can only detect a tiny bit of that range. One can then study various aspects. Maybe someone wants to examine subjective conscious experience, for example. To me, "blue" is a relatively imprecise term used to identify a range of frequencies. That is independent of how the frequency range is detected or created, so it has nothing to do with brains. This is important in exploring our physical universe.
But “blue” is only meaningful to a perceiving brain. So it has EVERYTHING to do with brains and only brains.
The interpretations created by the brains of various animals when stimulated by certain frequencies do have to do with those brains. But, electromagnetic frequency can be measured regardless of any such interpretation. One can buy a laser with a specific light frequency. One might buy a red laser, defined as being in a specific frequency range, or even an exact wave length, such as 650 nanometers, which is in the red range. What the detection systems and brains of animals do with that frequency is a separate issue that can be studied. In fact, study after study shows that there are physical ramifications to prolonged exposure to blue light frequencies. The light frequency is known. The reaction of the animal exposed to that frequency of light is a separate issue to be studied. The same goes for hearing. There is a frequency definition for a specific musical note. One can buy a tuning fork that emits a specific frequency that has a name. How the brains of animals process that frequency is a different issue from whether that frequency is being emitted.
Wait a minute. Are you under the delusion that I said or suggested that there’s no such thing as electromagnetic radiation?
True in a sense. Light in the visible spectrum runs from 380 to 700 nanometers. Red is at the 380 end and violet is at the 700 end. When we "see" something it is a reflection of light off the surface of the object we are seeing (unless it's generating it's own light) and then our brain interprets that light. So color you see is what we, as humans, have designated for that wavelength. You don't "see" red, you see light at about 380 nanometers and our brain interprets that as red.
No, I know you're well aware of such radiation. I'm saying that the study of light in our universe isn't dependent on human sight apparatus, including the brain. When color names are used, they refer to an electromagnetic frequency or maybe to a frequency range. Eye sight is not involved. It's the same for sound. In music, we define A as 440 Hertz - oscillations per minute. That's separate from anything about a human ear or brain. You can buy a tuning fork that oscillates at that precise rate so that a musical instrument can be tuned so that when A is played, 440 Hertz is emitted. That doesn't detract from the field of studying perception. In fact, it's important that there is a standard upon which to study perception.
There is "color", it is how the mind translates the different frequencies of light that the eye perceives. And different animals see "color" in different ways. This is akin to how a regular camera tuned to the human eye frequencies will give a different image than a camera tuned to the infrared or ultraviolet. In fact, some creatures like moths and butterflies have eyes that see so deeply into the ultraviolet that they see things and colors no human can. On the left is how we see a flower. But in ultraviolet (which many insects see in) they actually see what is on the right. So there actually is "color", it is how we describe the differences in wavelength of light.
The level of stupidity in some people never ceases to amaze me. Like trying to add the speed of a moving object to something like light or sound. No, they do not increase, light leaving an object moving is still going the speed of light. Just as a bullet fired from an airplane does not add the speed of the airplane to that of the bullet. That was actually a known problem of the F-86 Saberjet. They flew supersonic, and if the guns were used at high speed there was a real risk of the pilot shooting their own plane as the top speed of the plane was faster than the bullets they fired. This is why at high speeds (over MACH 1) planes do not use their bullets at a target in front of them, only missiles (that are dropped from the plane before igniting). And even subsonic, at high speeds they are very careful as the bullet will decrease in speed faster than the plane can, so they can still run into them as the bullet decreases due to air friction. They only fire their guns when climbing, or when descending in a bank that will take them out of the path of the bullet. But if somebody wants to see this in action, travel at a speed and throw a ball out the back of the vehicle. If you are traveling 60 mph and throw the ball at 60 mph, it does not just stop in mid air. Newton's laws of motion show that the ball still travels at 60 mph in the direction it was thrown, the speed of travel does not matter.
It's pretty fascinating stuff actually innit? Like for example there is an equation called Wien's Law that relates the peak wavelength emitted by a hot object to its temperature. Turns out that the sun's peak wavelength is green and it's not a coincidence that chlorophyll is the color that absorbs this peak wavelength. When we "see" a color, what we actually see is the missing wavelength when we look at reflected light. Pixels on screens mimic this so we "see" what we interpret as reflected light from rgb light sources. A value of RGB 0,255,0 actually turns on red and blue and turns off green.
True, that is the difference between reflected and emitted light. But there is still a "color", that is simply how we describe what we perceive visually. And it is used in other ways, like how some things (SONAR, and many video and audio editing systems) translate sound and even video into visual. When I do video editing, I use both an oscilloscope type display to translate the audio portions into a form I can see, and a "waterfall" display for the colors in the moving image. That is in addition to the video playback itself. On the bottom right corner one can see the "waterfall" display that shows the editor the differing wavelengths of light seen in the image. And if one notices, the display does not relate to the position of the light, but shows the "degree" of light being displayed. And is brighter when there is more of it on the screen in the position, not the actual location. This is helpful when trying to do color corrections, as it lets one see what frequencies might not belong to achieve the look that is wanted.
Then we can also get into the fun differences between RGB of light from a reflected surface, and the RYB of emitted light. Having done lighting, it is actually very different as it is much more effective in most cases to use a blue and yellow filter than it is to use a green filter when lighting something. And the objects do look different in BY light than they do in green light. This here is kind of the difference between imagining doing something, and actually doing it. As those of us who work in actual production do have to think of the differences between RGB and RYB. A common mistake of beginners is when they ask for a green hue to the lighting they throw on the green gels and not the yellow and blue gels. It can be hard to describe in words, but the effect is different.
Actually the flower on the right is a translation of UV frequencies which have been assigned certain colors by humans and the film or photographic medium they use as it is designed. IOW the red in that flower might not be seen by insects as the “red” we see it in that photograph. It may be seen by insects as we see green, or blue. I have done photography with film that translates UV into colors, and the colors it reveals for the green stem of a flower may for one type of film be red. For another it may be blue. It all depends on what color the chemistry assigns to that UV frequency.
No, I think we both understand it pretty well. "Color" is a perception, caused by the differences in the wavelength of particles striking the retinas. Differing wavelengths, different "colors". So the "color" exists, even if there are no eyes to see it. Just as a "sound" is just the vibrations of something that travels through a medium. It can be a solid, air, or liquid. And in fact it will "sound" different to different species, even those without "ears" will hear sounds so long as they have some form of apparatus to detect those vibrations. If there are different wavelengths of photons in the visible spectrum, they will be in different colors. That is simple physics, but please, explain it to us all since you appear to know everything. Just as "taste" exists, hearing, or almost anything else. An object would be "bumpy" or "smooth" or "hot" or "cold", even if there was nothing living to tell the difference.
I am aware of that, just as most images we get today from telescopes are not "real light" images, but created based upon the data collected by the telescopes and put into colors that we can detect. None of the above are "real", as in they are not visible light spectrum images. They take data from spectrums far outside the human ability to see and translate them into one that we can see. In fact, more recent studies have been showing that humans can see farther into the infrared than previously though, and some people can see into the ultraviolet. You are not making your claim at all here, and actually showing how little you seem to understand about it.
No, the different frequencies exist. They have no color. Human brains translate them into one set of “colors” in the brain, and dogs translate them into a different set. And again with insects and birds. And if there were no life on earth, there would be no colors. Well I can tell you this: photons have no wavelength. If there were no life on earth, there would be no flavors, sounds, nothing hot, nothing cold on earth. Those are all interpretations of different, specific stimuli by the brain.
I guess you’re the one who knows everything. -or thinks so. I have pointed out errors you’ve made in your claims and assertions today. But I probably have an unfair advantage with my degree in chemistry with studies in physics.
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Quantum_Mechanics/02._Fundamental_Concepts_of_Quantum_Mechanics/Photons#:~:text=Each photon has a wavelength,a photon propagates each second. https://energywavetheory.com/photons/photon-wavelengths/ http://electron6.phys.utk.edu/phys250/modules/module 1/photons.htm See the above? Those are known as "references". And I can pull up thousands more that very clearly state that the do have wavelengths. Funny, but you present no references at all. You sputter on about things you claim to know, but when somebody actually checks you on your claims, they fall apart. Have a nice day.
This argument about colour is approaching the silliness of the OP. Colour is a descriptive word defined by the language. No one knows if we all see an object as the same 'colour'. It's a philosophical argument
Exactly, some even argue that might explain why some have a "favorite" color. It might mostly be the same color, but we each see it the same way. But in the end, it is just a way to describe a different wavelength of visible light.
You’re engaging in philosophy, not physics and your basis is the ancient screed that man is the measure of all things. How profound….
