Colour

[mar_mar]

The light is the wave and the particle at the same time because of the colour. There is no colour in the nature, it's a product of a human conscience. The light becomes particle when colour is created in the brain.

Edited November 25, 2023 by mar_mar

[joigus]

Hi. Welcome.

Isn't this a little bit more about psychology of perception than quantum theory?

[mar_mar]

5 minutes ago, joigus said:

Hi. Welcome.

Isn't this a little bit more about psychology of perception than quantum theory?

Greetings. I think it's definitely not about psychology. Colour is not psychological concept. 

[joigus]

1 minute ago, mar_mar said:

Greetings. I think it's definitely not about psychology. Colour is not psychological concept. 

Oh, but your post is:

17 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

The light becomes particle when colour is created in the brain.

(My boldness.) You said it, not I.

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

Colour is not psychological concept. 

Of course it is. You’re conflating frequency with color. 

[mar_mar]

1 minute ago, joigus said:

Oh, but your post is:

(My boldness.) You said it, not I.

This is exactly what I said. But what is a colour in phisics? Phisics is not psychology. 

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

Of course it is. You’re conflating frequency with color. 

It's conflated by default. And this is what I'm talking about. 

[iNow]

9 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

It's conflated by default.

Elaborate 

[Genady]

11 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

what is a colour in phisics?

Here you are:

Quote

Color charge is a property of quarks and gluons that is related to the particles' strong interactions in the theory of quantum chromodynamics (QCD).

(Color charge - Wikipedia)

[joigus]

24 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

This is exactly what I said. But what is a colour in phisics? Phisics is not psychology. 

Pardon me. I thought you were trying to make sense.

[mar_mar]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

Elaborate 

You said that I conflate frequency and colour. But frequency IS the colour. Because we observe it. We can't detach these concepts. 

15 minutes ago, Genady said:

Here you are:

(Color charge - Wikipedia)

Physical properties

The visible spectrum perceived from 390 to 710 nm wavelength

Electromagnetic radiation is characterized by its wavelength (or frequency) and its intensity. When the wavelength is within the visible spectrum (the range of wavelengths humans can perceive, approximately from 390 nm to 700 nm), it is known as "visible light".

[studiot]

Aha

Colour (spelled) the English way refers to the our perception of light waves received by the human or animal eyes.

This has no connection to the property 'color charge' in particle physics which is a quantum property.

Please note that is has no connection to the property electric charge either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_charge

 

 

Edited November 25, 2023 by studiot
spelling

[mar_mar]

14 minutes ago, joigus said:

Pardon me. I thought you were trying to make sense.

Could you please explain me what is a colour? 

 

And ok, if it is needed I will change the place of topic, but I don't know how, I'm new. But color is not that simple as we think of it. And this concept contains far much more in itself and explains everything.

Edited November 25, 2023 by mar_mar

[exchemist]

5 minutes ago, joigus said:

Pardon me. I thought you were trying to make sense.

On the contrary.😉

[studiot]

13 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

You said that I conflate frequency and colour. But frequency IS the colour. Because we observe it. We can't detach these concepts. 

Frequency does not coorrelate directly with perceived colour because we have 3 separate and different colour receptors in our eyes and what we perceive is a mixture of the signals from each of these different receptors.

12 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

Could you please explain me what is a colour? 

Slow down and wait for others to amplify my answers.

It may help alot.

[iNow]

19 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

You said that I conflate frequency and colour. But frequency IS the colour. Because we observe it. We can't detach these concepts. 

Nonsense. Of course we can, and frequency continues to be conflated with color in your posts. While related, attachment isn’t mandated. 

16 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

Could you please explain me what is a colour? 

A label we’ve learned growing up in a society that rewards us for naming things accurately and making sense in conversation. 

Edited November 26, 2023 by iNow

[swansont]

29 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

Physical properties

The visible spectrum perceived from 390 to 710 nm wavelength

Electromagnetic radiation is characterized by its wavelength (or frequency) and its intensity. When the wavelength is within the visible spectrum (the range of wavelengths humans can perceive, approximately from 390 nm to 700 nm), it is known as "visible light".

Note that ”perceive” appears here (twice)

That’s physiology. Where’s the physics?

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, mar_mar said:

There is no colour in the nature, it's a product of a human conscience.

I think you mean consciousness, but that's not entirely true. It's the cells in our eyes that have a big part in producing the colour in the mind. It's easy to demonstrate this, because some people are colour blind, and the reason is a defect in the cone cells in the retina. So light has it's frequency property, but it's the combination of eyes and brain that separates it into various colours. 

Different eyes connected to different brains see different colours. 

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, mar_mar said:

The light becomes particle when colour is created in the brain.

If I were to guess (there seem some translation difficulties), I think you are saying that in some measurements, light has particle-like properties.  When light strikes a retinal cell, there is a photon of a certain energy that interacts with a retinal pigment - this is the measurement part of human perception.  This form of measurement physics would interpret as a particle interacting with a molecule of pigment.  Color is a perception artifact that arises from neurological processes farther along the causal line.   It is, as you said, "created" by our mind as part of its ongoing process of making models of what's happening in the external world.  It assigns certain subjective properties, e.g. "blueness," to a measurement of 450-495 nm light striking the retina.

The part relevant to quantum theory would be that light strikes a receptor, like the retinal cell, with only certain specific energies, as if it were not continuous waves but also discrete packets bearing a specific energy.  The receptor pigment molecule energy does not change continuously, as would happen with a pure wave-like interaction, but rather rises in discrete jumps.  Hence, "particle" becomes the term of convenience.  However if we looked at the light beam passing through the cornea and lens, then it would be more useful to see it as an optical phenomenon i.e. waves.

Edited November 26, 2023 by TheVat
pgbjekr

[studiot]

We almost never see light of a single frequency. Such light is called monochromatic light.

Almost all our light sources generate a range of frequencies.

Most depend upon the temperature of the body, the whiter the light it generates.

When white light falls on anything some of that light is absorbed and some is reflected, but not all frequencies are either absorbed or reflected equally.

In fact some frequencies are removed all together.

 

So the incoming light is almost always a misture of a large numbr of frequencies.

 

We do not have receptors in our eyes for all these frequencies, in fact, we have three different receptors, each sensive to a small range of frequencies.

Some animals have only two receptor types and some only one.

The strength of the signal (to the brain) from each of these types of sensor depends upon the strength of the light in the mixture that fall within its particular range.

The brain then interprets this combination of signals as what we call a 'colour'.

This combination can be replicated artificially using light sources filtered to produce light corresponding to our receptor ranges.

The three are called the base coulours and the entire range of colours that can be distinguished or seen by out eyes.

The base colours are red, green and blue.

The entire range of colours is called the colour gamut or colour space

These links might help

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamut

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_space

[mar_mar]

On 11/26/2023 at 1:00 AM, iNow said:

Nonsense. Of course we can, and frequency continues to be conflated with color in your posts. While related, attachment isn’t mandated. 

A label we’ve learned growing up in a society that rewards us for naming things accurately and making sense in conversation. 

 

When you see green grass , you don't say that the grass reflects the wave of frequency 5.45 Hz, you say green grass. 

 

And this is precisely what i ask:what is a colour

On 11/26/2023 at 1:12 AM, swansont said:

Note that ”perceive” appears here (twice)

That’s physiology. Where’s the physics?

There's note that "The visible spectrum perceived from 390 to 710 nm wavelength", where is psychology?

On 11/26/2023 at 1:39 AM, TheVat said:

If I were to guess (there seem some translation difficulties), I think you are saying that in some measurements, light has particle-like properties.  When light strikes a retinal cell, there is a photon of a certain energy that interacts with a retinal pigment - this is the measurement part of human perception.  This form of measurement physics would interpret as a particle interacting with a molecule of pigment.  Color is a perception artifact that arises from neurological processes farther along the causal line.   It is, as you said, "created" by our mind as part of its ongoing process of making models of what's happening in the external world.  It assigns certain subjective properties, e.g. "blueness," to a measurement of 450-495 nm light striking the retina.

The part relevant to quantum theory would be that light strikes a receptor, like the retinal cell, with only certain specific energies, as if it were not continuous waves but also discrete packets bearing a specific energy.  The receptor pigment molecule energy does not change continuously, as would happen with a pure wave-like interaction, but rather rises in discrete jumps.  Hence, "particle" becomes the term of convenience.  However if we looked at the light beam passing through the cornea and lens, then it would be more useful to see it as an optical phenomenon i.e. waves.

I mean that the observation of light "convert" light to a particle. In one's head it is not the wave of particular frequency and length, it is a colour. Mind doesn't calculate the length and frequency of colour! Colour doesn't have measurements, only wave does. The wave of particular length becomes a red pencil. Red pencil is a particle. Human observation gives sense to the red pencil and makes it particle. It interprets the wave "red" and name the thing-"pencil".

 

What i want to say, is that the world is not as we observe it. The world is amount of something, and human mind literally creates the world. If there's no human mind, there is nothing. No colours, no time, no items, no things - nothing. Yes, animals also distinguish colours, but only human being has consciousness, words, describes the world, gives names and concepts. 
So, if the world  is not like we see it, but we see it as it is, what does it mean?  it means that the world is created. No more, no less. And it has been observed with human eyes. And the human being is created, who in turn creates the world. 
And I have one fundamental question: why the grass is green? And i don't mean biological processes. Why do we observe green grass and blue sky? Why does grass reflect green? And why does the light have different waves and frequencies?
I hope it was not very complicated.

Edited November 27, 2023 by mar_mar

[zapatos]

17 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

The world is amount of something, and human mind literally creates the world. If there's no human mind, there is nothing.

Of course there is. Dinosaurs existed even though no humans were there at the same time. How did the human mind come to be if there was nothing there from which they could have developed? 

[swansont]

10 hours ago, mar_mar said:

There's note that "The visible spectrum perceived from 390 to 710 nm wavelength", where is psychology?

I said physiology, not psychology. But the brain is involved in color perception.

10 hours ago, mar_mar said:

I mean that the observation of light "convert" light to a particle.

Particle behavior does not require observation of the photon.

[mar_mar]

12 hours ago, zapatos said:

Of course there is. Dinosaurs existed even though no humans were there at the same time. How did the human mind come to be if there was nothing there from which they could have developed? 

I feel the irony, but I look at a little different angle, beyond dinosaurs. 

I want to use the state from The Bible not for preaching but to explain my thought:'And God created man in His image'. A man does creat the world. The first task to Adam was to name animals. And colour is clear evidence. We don't see molecules and atoms , but we see blue sky: we CREAT blue sky. And this is a man who observes the world makes concepts and gives names. Man called the sun -sun, a tree - tree, dinosaur - dinosaur. No human - no dinosaurs. Does something exit before receiving the name?

Edited November 27, 2023 by mar_mar

[StringJunky]

4 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

I feel the irony, but I look at a little different angle, beyond dinosaurs. 

I want to use the state from The Bible not for preaching but to explain my thought:'And God created man in His image'. A man does creat the world. The first task to Adam was to name animals. And colour is clear evidence. We don't see molecules and atoms , but we see blue sky etc. And this is a man who observes the world makes concepts and gives names. Man called the sun -sun, a tree - tree, dinosaur - dinosaur. No human - no dinosaurs. Does something exit before receiving the name?

Religious concepts and scientific concepts are not amenable to discussing together... they are immiscible.

[studiot]

12 hours ago, mar_mar said:

Colour doesn't have measurements,

Did you read the material I offered or am I wasting my time ?

 

12 hours ago, mar_mar said:

And the human being is created, who in turn creates the world. 

 

15 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

I want to use the state from The Bible not for preaching but to explain my thought:'And God created man in His image'. A man does creat the world. The first task to Adam was to name animals. And colour is clear evidence. We don't see molecules and atoms , but we see blue sky etc. And this is a man who observe the world make concepts and give names. Man called the sun -sun, a tree - tree, dinosaur - dinosaur. No human - no dinosaurs. Does something exit before receiving the name?

 

If you come to the PHYSICS section of a scientific discussion forum like this one and start rabbitting on like this you can't imagine how quickly you will loose credibility.

I call the first quote trying to introduce religion by the back door and the second quote preaching religion.