On Nothing in a void.

Is that not called an "equation", a mathematical identification and expression of natural relationships?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ok, if you want to cherry-pick my responses, even as you well know what I meant in regards to "additive colors" .

Here are your three fundamental colors which produce white light.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Note that these three "primary" colors combined produce white light.

Is that specifically what you asked for?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ok. I have given you the three primary colors.
The following was in response to your question about "wavelengths and their "nm". I thought it best to present the entire visible spectrum of visible colors with their associated "nm". In addition I also provided their "frequencies" and "photon energies".
Just because you did not ask for them all, does not in any way prohibit me from showing them.
It might be of interest to other people who are interested in the subject. Anything wrong with that?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Color.......Wavelength.......Frequency..........Photon energy
Violet...380–450 nm.....668–789 THz.....2.75–3.26 eV
Blue.....450–495 nm......606–668 THz.....2.50–2.75 eV
Green...495–570 nm......526–606 THz.....2.17–2.50 eV
Yellow..570–590 nm......508–526 THz.....2.10–2.17 eV
Orange.590–620 nm......484–508 THz.....2.00–2.10 eV
Red......620–750 nm......400–484 THz......1.65–2.00 eV

, in mathematical terms.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If there is doubt as to the accurate symbolic representation of natural phenomena, then why do we use mathematics at all and how would one be able to see flaws in a specific calculus or equation?

 

And just to conclude my rant; when many actual theoretical mathematicians, experience a sense of "discovery", when the answer to their new equation precisely matches with naturally and regularly occurring phenomena that was there all along to begin with. IMO, mathematics (the processing of information) is an essence of the fabric of spacetime, as we are beginning to know it.
Energy (the information) is another such fundamental essence and is mathematically measurable by its various expression of values and functions and near infinite expressions of the inherent mathematical potentials inherent in the fabric of spacetime.

We know most of the HOW; a form of "mathematical imperatives"..

We just don't know the WHY; The "theory of everything" yet.

We may never know the WHY, but it is not important, because it is a meaningless question, IMHO.

 

For those keeping count, Write4U's posts above missed the mark on at least the following:
- Write4U doesn't understand the relation of mathematics and the universe.
- Write4U doesn't understand what an analogue is.
- Write4U doesn't understand what refutations are.
- Write4U doesn't understand that multiplication is not an equation, but an operation.
- Write4U doesn't understand what cherry-picking is.
- Write4U doesn't understand that when asked for 3 specific things, the answer shouldn't contain a list of 6.
- Write4U doesn't understand the difference between something that works, and something that's true.
- Write4U doesn't understand the relationship between mathematics and the fabric of spacetime.
- Write4U doesn't understand the difference between energy and information.
- Write4U doesn't understand the relationship between mathematics and measurements.
- Write4U doesn't understand what (mathematical) values and functions are.

No, I specifically asked for their wavelengths, which you later acknowledge. And on that topic, the list you gave has wavelength-ranges, which means there's an extreme large (practically infinite) number of wavelengths that you call fundamental, not just 3.

 

I said 3 "primary colors".

 

Please stop lying:

 

Post # 242: W4U said

 

So you admit to moving the goalposts? Great, glad we cleared that up!

 

Yes, I am capable to present the same thing from 2 different perspectives.

 

For those keeping count, Write4U's post above missed the mark on at least the following:
- Write4U doesn't understand the difference between frequencies and wavelength-ranges.
- Write4U doesn't understand what "moving the goalposts" means.

 

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/light/Lesson-2/Color-Addition

www.reference.com › Science › Colors

 

You're only proving my point that you don't know the difference between a singular value and a range.

 

This is actually interesting in that it shows that to speak of "colours" is to speak of human perception of light - and NOT of the physics of light at all.

The reason why we perceive colours by reference to these three "primary colours" is that human eyes have three types of photoreceptor that are most sensitive to different frequencies in a way that makes us feel that there are mixtures of red, green and blue frequencies. We do not have a full-range spectrometer in our optical system.

There is no basis in physics to consider these colours to have any special significance, nor for any notion that frequencies in between these three colours are in some sense made up of "mixtures" of these primary frequencies.

Any talk of "wavefunctions" comprising mixtures of these colours is hogwash.

Colour perception is a phenomenon of human biology and has to be distinguished from the physics of EM radiation.

 

I already tried to make that clear to Write4U in post #181, where I posted this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_sensitivity#/media/File:Cones_SMJ2_E.svg I guess that was too advanced for him/her?

 

Ah, so you did. Confess I had failed to spot that. I've just gone into a bit more detail, then.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I doubt he will have read it, to be honest. He'll just have moved hastily onto something else, Gish-like.

P.S. In fact, if one could (which one cannot) make a "mixture" of mid-point red and green frequencies using Write4U's table of ranges, the resulting beat frequency would be the frequency difference of the components, ~125 THz, i.e. off into the short wavelength infra-red, nowhere near the frequency range of yellow light!

 

Perhaps my assumption that Write4U understood the biological side of the primary colors was too hasty, so I do appreciate you explicitly pointing it out independently.

And even if Write4U reads it, there's a big difference between merely reading something, and understanding and internalizing its knowledge. I'm hoping Write4U can bridge that gap, but history advices us to more strongly expect your predicated outcome.

 

It does of course raise the tangentially interesting question of what Shapiro/Tegmark and co really meant by whatever it was they said that Write4U has misinterpreted to be some stuff about mixed wavefunctions or whatever it was. After all they, at least, will have understood the physics of it all.

 

Indeed. It doesn't appear to be a direct quote, and I personally am not feeling inclined to go and hunt for it, so we'll just have to wait until Write4U provides proper citations for it.