[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 191 KB, 504x504, color-wheel-705058.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2136736 No.2136736 [Reply] [Original]

Hello, /sci/. I have a question that has been plaguing me for a long time, and I thought that such learned gentlemen as yourselves might be able to give me a concise answer. It has always bothered me that when talking about colors as pigments people will arrange them in a wheel demonstrating how they mix together and relate to their opposites, but when talking about color as light people will arrange them in a linear spectrum that simply goes from one end to the other. How does this work? If we had the ability to see a broader spectrum of colors then would the opposite of blue be something other than orange, and would mixing violet and red yield to some new mystery color? Do you understand what I'm asking?

>> No.2136744

Pigment wheel is physical pigments that produce the desired colors. Light color is a scale of wavelengths associated with the colors

>> No.2136759

This also bothers me a lot, OP. I have come up with a conjecture, but have nothing to back it up:

"Color isn't an inherent property of light. It's simply the way our brain organizes the information received from the eyes based on the wavelength of the light it detects - like an FM radio does with radio waves to separate bewteen the stations, we do with light to separate between the colors. That's why red and violet, even though they're at opposite ends of the visible light spectrum, are neighboring colors and can blend into each other. If we could see a broader spectrum of colors, the opposites would probably shift to accomodate the new colors between red and violet - either that, or the ring of colors would expand to cover the broader spctrum, and we'd see more detailed distinctions between colors (for example, we'd see an intermediate tone between red and orange as a separate color, just like we now see orange as a separate color from red or yellow).

I'd like to hear on this from someone who actually knows what they're talking about, though.

>> No.2136761

>>2136744
But we still perceive the light reflecting off of the pigments as fitting into a wheel. Pairing opposite colors gives us aesthetic satisfaction, and we can visually discern that purple is half-way between blue and red. Is the wheel a lie?

>> No.2136765

>If we had the ability to see a broader spectrum of colors then would the opposite of blue be something other than orange
Yes. The concept of opposite colors is an artifact of the way our eyes work, not a deep property of colors; different eyes would have a different notion of opposites (or even none at all).
>and would mixing violet and red yield to some new mystery color?
Probably. Violet (well, pink, actually) is in fact already a mystery color -- there is no pink light, only mixtures of red light and blue light that the brain interprets as some strange new color.

>> No.2136772

>>2136761
some beutiful musical chords have a slight disharmony or beating.. our sensory input is flawed

>> No.2136773

Does this answer your question, OP?

http://www.biotele.com/magenta.html

>> No.2136778

philosophical question:

could there be a color no one has seen yet?

>> No.2136786

>>2136759
>>2136765
>>2136773
Thanks for the answers. It's strange that what we perceive as aesthetic might be completely relative to the limitation of our sight. I wonder if bees would think that the color pallets designer rooms would completely clash.

>>2136778
Don't we already know that there are some insects that can see more colors than us?

>> No.2136787

>>2136778
I wish people would learn the difference between "philosophical question" and "I'm too lazy to settle on a particular definition of terms".

>> No.2136793

>>2136778
Nope, I believe that color is filled in by our brains to distinguish between light of different wavelengths, and using the same screen you are looking at right now, we can create 16 million different colors, and the difference between two that are very close to each other cannot be seen by the human eye.

>> No.2136798

>>2136786
>Don't we already know that there are some insects that can see more colors than us?

Yes, and many insects can see into the UV spectrum too (some "boring" flowers looking completely different when viewed through a UV camera).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentachromacy

>> No.2136801

So do "new" colors exist outside the visible spectrum? I've heard that astronauts at re-entry report experiencing colors they'd never seen before.

>> No.2136809

>>2136786
They can see a wider range of wavelengths. Obviously we can't really say what it looks like, because we can only describe light that is visible to ourselves. Even so called infrared imaging has to be shifted into our visible range for us to see it.

>> No.2136819

>>2136787
lolno. i have no problem with the fact that we can represent the entire visible spectrum, and outside it our eyes doesnt register anything. BUT:
say with synestasia, LSD, dreaming or whatever.
is it not a fascinating thought that there could be something that seems like a color to your brain, but cannot be "seen" and is not a combination of other colors?

>> No.2136822

>>2136819
or "what would infra red look like if it had a colour?"

>> No.2136827

>>2136798
I've heard of tetrachromatic vision but never pentachromatic. mind = blown

>> No.2136910
File: 19 KB, 772x501, 1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2136910

>>2136822

>or "what would infra red look like if it had a colour?"

whatever our brains decide it should look like. Colour isn't an objective quantity intrinsic to each wavelength. It is a figment of our brains.

One interesting thing about human colour perception is that in terms of responsiveness to certain wavelenghts, our colour cones are not spread out evenly at all. Our Red and Green cones pick up wavelengths which are practically beside each other whereas blue is way off at the other side. If you look at all the visible wavelengths you will not see much subjective difference between different shades of "blue" which are as different from each other scientifically as red is from yellow!

Aparently the reason for this is that colour vision evolved when our ancestors lived in trees to help them find good fruit among the leaves (telling red, yellow from green was important). Blue evolutionarily was more of a background colour (water, sky etc.).

Weird, eh?

>> No.2136932

>>2136822
Honest answer? It would look like infra-red. Because >>2136910