Why, yes.
Anything goes talk is that
Tim Gray said:
Energy, frequency and wavelength are indeed three different aspects of an entity.
They're not the same "quantity" expressed in different ways.
So it's how 'color sensitive thingies' (which I shortened to 'detectors') and photon energy interact.
Um, no? Photon energy, frequency, and wavelength are all essentially the same quantity, expressed in different ways. It's not anything goes.
Tim Gray said:they just have an energy/wavelength/frequency, depending on how you want to think about it.
I assume you are talking about B/W emulsion w/o presumed sensitivity in that region...
"Ordinary" (meaning blue sensitive, non-spectrally sensitized) emulsions
are also sensitive to red!
I know one possible explanation,
but I suspect your POV might related here as an additional explanation.
I guess its probably too complicated for you (Q. G.) to show us how it works?
Energy, frequency and wavelength are indeed three different aspects of an entity.
They're not the same "quantity" expressed in different ways.
Sorry, I should have been pedantically precise in my language. [...]
As to the first part - so photons don't have colors. They have energies, and color is how the detector 'interprets' that energy.
Actually, a film exposed to pure sodium vapor lamp light sees a stream of photons with the energy level that causes the appearance of "yellow" light with a frequency of 600 nm (Red + Green). These photons excite two layers of a color film, the Red and Green layers, thus producing a "Yellow" record which is minus Blue. If anyone has another opinion, they can post it in detail. I have given the two applicable references, the Sodium vapor wavelength and the Kodak film sensitivity curves.
I await another explanation that that stream of 600 nm photons.
Can a wavelengh have more than one energy level?
[...] And veering incredibly far off course (from news about Kodak to quantum mechanics, wow!), to say that photons don't have wavelengths isn't quite correct. I'm tapping out on that though. If someone wants to know more about quantum mechanics and wave-particle duality, let me know. I feel QG doesn't particularly care about it though, so it's not worth my time.
I feel wrong about what exactly?
[...] I feel QG doesn't particularly care about it though, so it's not worth my time.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by 'energy level' in this context. If you mean a photon's energy, then no. A photon with a given wavelength has a given energy and vice versa. And a photon with a given wavelength has a given frequency and vice versa.
If you don't mean that, you'll have to clarify it.
And veering incredibly far off course (from news about Kodak to quantum mechanics, wow!), to say that photons don't have wavelengths isn't quite correct. I'm tapping out on that though. If someone wants to know more about quantum mechanics and wave-particle duality, let me know. I feel QG doesn't particularly care about it though, so it's not worth my time.
Oh, I said I don't particularly think you care about learning about quantum mechanics. It's clear at this point you are just trolling about so it's not really worth going into an in depth discussion about that. If you do have actual knowledge of it, it certainly doesn't appear that way by the manner you are expressing yourself.
Sorry if your sentence was a bit hard to parse.
If one, like me, wanted to learn something from this soon-to-become-a-row discussion, I think he would distill its essence more or less this way: [...]
On the other hand, magenta is a colour that the human eye cannot perceive as a portion of the white light spectrum. We can find a way to reproduce magenta using the three colour theory, but that is not a colour that we "find" anywhere in the way the human light perceives the light. Is it that?
I have kept to the matter in hand in each and every single post i have made.
What problem? You're the only one who has a problem with it, as far as I can tell.And there's the problem.
You would think so. But... That's what this is all (the different threads this has surfaced in) about.
Irrelevant to what?Completely irrelevant it is here too.
And when pushed despite of that, misleading and incorrect also.
Very presumptive, you are.Duh...
So you do not see what's going on.
You don't see how yellow is not a mix of whatever two colours, but the colour a photon can have. A photon an emulsion shows a response to, despite it not being a tri-colour emulsion.
Even more presumptive. Why would I talk about tri-color methods, otherwise? Do you think I don't know about multi-layer color materials?You don't see that the tri-colour trickery has to be employed to differentiate between the colours, so you can use panchromatic B&W emulsions to create something you can perceive as separate colours.
PE said something like "Sorry guys, this is way off topic". I pointed out an inadvertent error; further discussion ensued. You participated and expanded the discussion. So what's your beef?You don't see that it is all irrelevant, because we were not talking about anything like this. Until someone brought it up to give some 'relevance' to completely irrelevant comments.
That's how it usually is when you're involved.Round and round and round and round and...
The going is remarkably tough on APUG today.
That's not how I've read quite a few post of yours to me and others. I'm sorry if I've presumed anything about you.
If I understand this whole argument over color and light, it would seem as if one side would like to say that '600 nm light' = 'yellow light', i.e. yellow is an intrinsic property of that light. It seems like the other side would like to say that we perceive 600 nm light as yellow, i.e. 'yellow' is not an intrinsic property of light, it's wavelength is.
If you take those two sides to the next step, the first says magenta isn't a real color because you can't make magenta with one single wavelength of light. The other side would say that's not true because color is 'all in our heads'. I think they would agree with the statement that magenta does not correspond to a single wavelength of light, but that doesn't disqualify it from being a color.
The other side in this claims that yellow is an additive or subtractive colour, the result of a combination of two other colours.
OMG, they're self-aware!Who said that?
But yes, all sensors also sense themselves.
Since when do photons have a wavelength or frequency?
You go ahead. We'll catch up later. Much later.You could go down that road, and not be done talking for many years.
Heisenberg would be so relieved to know you agree with him.You could also assume some relation between observation and the observed.
What problem? You're the only one who has a problem with it, as far as I can tell.
Irrelevant to what?
Misleading, incorrect...how? Compared to what?
Very presumptive, you are.
I of course do know that combining two frequencies does not result in reality in their annihilation and the production of a third frequency. But color is a sensation. What we perceive as color does not exist. Only EM radiation of various frequencies. In color photography, emulsions are filtered (frequencies removed) to control the frequency range to which the emulsion is sensitive, or to reduce sensitivity to a frequency or frequencies.
Functionally, though, combining two colors will result in the perception of another color. Color photographs are for looking at. Color materials are manufactured using methods which work. They use those methods, and we get to look at the all the purty colors.
Even more presumptive. Why would I talk about tri-color methods, otherwise? Do you think I don't know about multi-layer color materials?
PE said something like "Sorry guys, this is way off topic". I pointed out an inadvertent error; further discussion ensued. You participated and expanded the discussion. So what's your beef?
That's how it usually is when you're involved.
And the first side says...?
one side would like to say that '600 nm light' = 'yellow light' [...]
Heisenberg would be so relieved to know you agree with him.
You do forget in a hurry!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?