try to imagine a new colour

[Trull]

Imagine if you could see gamma O.O it would just be like AHHH ITS EVERYWHERE except lead

 

[Captain Underbeard]

But are they half-particle, half-wave? Or half-wave, half-particle? Or are they, heeheehee, one and the same and neither at the same time??

It is indeed the fourth option: a duality-- acting like a particle in some ways, yet still displaying wavelike behavior in others.

You can fire a single photon at a target and measure it-- a bullet hitting a wall.

You can put a box with two slits, and fire one photon at a time at those slits. Even though only one photon was in the box at any time, the particle INTERFERES WITH ITSELF.

woah

I know, ain't it cool? Even cooler is that if you fire a single particle of light at a target that's obscured by a sheet of metal/plastic/whatever with two holes in it, you'll find the single particle manages to GO THROUGH BOTH HOLES and hit the target as one particle.

Now that's magic

Infra-Violet-Glurpaple.

I can't even describe it

The entire visual spectrum is Infra-violet. It is also Ultra-red.
To imagine anything beyond our current visual range is as impossible as visualizing the fourth dimension.

Sorry, I don't know if you're serious with the whole visible spectrum thing. If you're messing around, it doesn't seem very joke-y. If you're not, then someone taught you physics wroooong

You want to make your head really hurt? Theres no such thing as color. Color is just wavelengths of light-- packets of energy. Our eyes resolve the differences of those energy packets, and the brain thus assigns colors to those packets of energy.

At the end of the day, color is a figment of your imagination. Simply tiny variations of quantized energy within a finite range.

On a more interesting note, I'd argue that colour isn't a figment of your imagination as this is how quantized energy within what we call the visible spectrum would always look like - those ranges of quantized energy would exist regardless of our existence.

But your point is very valid - only problem is it's unprovable either way. To another species X-rays may be the range of visible colours, and our 'visible' range may just more junky long-wave (relatively speaking here) radiation. But that's a question for philosophers and/or biologists

Kwenzie-Epsilon-X3442-Lepiger

It's kinda like a Yutsat, but more Pwuvly.

I heard that's the new 'in' colour!

 

[Scrubiii]

I'm colour blind, so I can't even imagine all the old ones yet...

 

[Brandon237]

I'm thinking black that ;eaves a green flash on your retina... but that is not original, just weird as shit glowing-ness... THIS F**KING HURTS! OP, you have done it, my mind... just... pain...

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Right, so, I'm not talking about a new shade of purple or something like that.

Try to imagine a new colour, as in a completely new section in the spectrum of light colours. what would it look like? how could you describe it? has your brain fried yet or is it actually possible to "create" something that doesn't exist inside your head? I've tried to do this way too many times before and failed but if you can, then you're probably god, but even if you can't what name would you call this new colour?

It's not possible for a human as our concept of colour is the visible spectrum. Below infra-red and above ultra-violet light is not visible to us and what is visible has been thoroughly mapped out. Colour is the perception of different wavelengths of visible light and what we cannot perceive we cannot conceive.

You want to make your head really hurt? Theres no such thing as color.

I'm sorry but that is simply not true. There is such a thing as colour. Excepting for colour-blindness, if you showed the same picture of a lawn to many different people, they would all consistently see that it is green. Light reflects off the grass, the majority of visible light is absorbed and the wavelength left to reflect off will be consistently green amonst the people asked. It is easy to prove, easily measured and quite quantifiable. Even if there were only a single person alive who could see it, it would still exist and be just as true, even if it couldn't be agreed on by others.

The fact that we have technologies that work and are consistently reliable and recreatable further prove this (paints, RGB monitors, printer toners, photographic film, movies and even two people sat outdoors commenting on the colour of the sky).

 

[Natasha_LB]

LAB colour can describe colours that can never be reproduced/seen, it imagines new colours all the time, but we can never perceive them. If you want to give yourself a headache thought, I recommend getting drunk and trying to "see" them anyway, it killed a few hours for me, and in spite of head pain it was actually kinda cool.

 

[thiosk]

'm sorry but that is simply not true. There is such a thing as colour. Excepting for colour-blindness, if you showed the same picture of a lawn to many different people, they would all consistently see that it is green. Light reflects off the grass, the majority of visible light is absorbed and the wavelength left to reflect off will be consistently green amonst the people asked. It is easy to prove, easily measured and quite quantifiable.

Thats not the point. The point is that the color is merely packets with different energy levels, for which our eyes can absorb a limited range. Your eyes are energy-resolved light detection arrays. Those signals are transmitted to your brain. Your brain then does a transform on that incoming data and you see what you see-- most of the work is in your brain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achromatopsia

A lot of those poor folks have fully functioning eyes, but the brain is the problem. Normal stimulus in, but no color. As far as your technologies that recreate colors go, you're ignoring the original point and just hammering on your perceptions. Green paint is green because it does not absorb light 550 nm light very well, so all that bounces back from that surface is that 550 nm light. Color is 100% perception. Just because evolution has kept most of us perceiving things the same way (it aids survival to tell your kids not to eat the red leaves) is not evidence of much other than that evolutionary biology is cool.

An animal that can see in the infrared but not in the visible would have an entirely different opinion on this subject from yours. However, they can't talk, so we're kinda screwed there. But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what you believe about the nature of the universe-- everyone lives here all the same.

 

[fragmaster09]

i did it, i suppose, it's like purple AND grey AT THE SAME TIME!(i don't understand it)

it's called Srenblanf... after all, words are just a combination of sounds

 

[fragmaster09]

'm sorry but that is simply not true. There is such a thing as colour. Excepting for colour-blindness, if you showed the same picture of a lawn to many different people, they would all consistently see that it is green. Light reflects off the grass, the majority of visible light is absorbed and the wavelength left to reflect off will be consistently green amonst the people asked. It is easy to prove, easily measured and quite quantifiable.

Thats not the point. The point is that the color is merely packets with different energy levels, for which our eyes can absorb a limited range. Your eyes are energy-resolved light detection arrays. Those signals are transmitted to your brain. Your brain then does a transform on that incoming data and you see what you see-- most of the work is in your brain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achromatopsia

A lot of those poor folks have fully functioning eyes, but the brain is the problem. Normal stimulus in, but no color. As far as your technologies that recreate colors go, you're ignoring the original point and just hammering on your perceptions. Green paint is green because it does not absorb light 550 nm light very well, so all that bounces back from that surface is that 550 nm light. Color is 100% perception. Just because evolution has kept most of us perceiving things the same way (it aids survival to tell your kids not to eat the red leaves) is not evidence of much other than that evolutionary biology is cool.

An animal that can see in the infrared but not in the visible would have an entirely different opinion on this subject from yours. However, they can't talk, so we're kinda screwed there. But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what you believe about the nature of the universe-- everyone lives here all the same.

also, they may SAY it's green, but what I see as green could be what you see as what i would see as red, but i call it green and you do too because that's what we have been taught to call it...

 

[thiosk]

snips

also, they may SAY it's green, but what I see as green could be what you see as what i would see as red, but i call it green and you do too because that's what we have been taught to call it...

nah-- with the exception of the colorblind (especially red green colorblindness), this doesn't really happen, though the idea can certainly send one's mind for a loop. Its fairly straight forward to test color perception.

Thats not to say that theres not some goof out there who claims his green is your red... but most likely he's taking the piss for attention.

 

[LobsterFeng]

I've been trying to figure out what color the wind is since I was like 5.

 

[Phlakes]

There's a way to see greenish red and bluish yellow, ill post a link in a moment.

You mean brown?

OT: I don't want to get into the science for it, but the spectrum of light is set, so all colors are set.

 

[Magicmad5511]

Kwapow. The color you'd see if Chuck Norris roundhouse kicked you in the face.

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

There's a way to see greenish red and bluish yellow, ill post a link in a moment.

You mean brown?

OT: I don't want to get into the science for it, but the spectrum of light is set, so all colors are set.

Nah, hold on....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_colors

It was in a scitenfic american magazine. I tried it, and saw both reddish green and blueish yellow.

Pretty cool actually, the best way I can describe it is the latter is a bit like gray, but with saturation (saturation as in HSV).

 

[fragmaster09]

snips

also, they may SAY it's green, but what I see as green could be what you see as what i would see as red, but i call it green and you do too because that's what we have been taught to call it...

nah-- with the exception of the colorblind (especially red green colorblindness), this doesn't really happen, though the idea can certainly send one's mind for a loop. Its fairly straight forward to test color perception.

Thats not to say that theres not some goof out there who claims his green is your red... but most likely he's taking the piss for attention.

his green is my green because they are both called green, but the way that our brains picture that MIGHT be different, thing is, you can't prove or disprove it, seeing as we both know the colour by the same name.

for example, if i described green i would say living grass, but that would be described by the colour green, making the whole idea pointless, we can't describe the colour.

what you see as red i see as red, we both call it red, but if you used my eyes and brain then you might call it purple or somethinng like that.

here is what i mean, imagine you have 2 people, Seamus and Patrick(i know they are Irish names i just felt like it), and a brain transplanting machine that manages to transfer all of the memories and knowledge from one brain to the other.
Seamus would see the sky and call it blue, but when Patrick's knowledge was there instead, he might think 'wait, that's yellow!', because what Patrick called Blue was seen by Seamus as what Patrick would call Yellow, even though as themselves they would both call it Blue.

understand what i mean?

i'm still not sure how i got my head around this