Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
-----Original Message-----_______________________________________________
From: Forum for Physics Educators
[mailto:PHYS-L@list1.ucc.nau.edu] On Behalf Of Folkerts, Timothy J
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2005 11:29 AM
To: PHYS-L@LISTS.NAU.EDU
Subject: Re: Color (was LED mini-flashlight price break)
One could quite easily argue the other side of the color disagreement=
-- that it is the scientists who have the definition wrong. =20
As Devil's Advocate, let me argue that color is the
perception of the= interaction of light with three widely
overlapping broadband photose= nsors. Stimulating the eye
with a) a single frequency near the overl= ap of two sensors
b) two separate frequencies near the peak responses= of the
two sensors, or c) a broad range within the response regions
= of the two sensors will all create roughly the same
response in the e= ye. All three of these are "the same color". =20
That's why three colors (not four or five or two) are
"primary". By = choosing three inks or three lights that
each stimulate primarily one= receptor, then a rather
accurate recreation of any color perception = can be produced.
=20
It's us physicists who messed it up by trying to equate a
specific co= lor with a specific wavelength ;-)
Tim F