On Nothing in a void.

[Write4U]

It turns out that multiplication in the complex plane is the same as performing some particular geometric operations. In a sense, both are the same: they are just two (very) different ways of expressing the same underlying relations. Once such a correspondence is established, it's hard to conceptually separate the two again

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

 

[Write4U]

No, I didn't ask for three examples. You said there were only three, and now you are giving six. In other words, you have contradicted yourself.

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.

Additive color

Additive color is a method to create color by mixing a number of different light colors, with shades of red, green, and blue being the most common primary colors used in additive color system.

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

Is that specifically what you asked for?

 

[Write4U]

If white light is "three fundamental wavelengths", please give the value of these wavelengths (in nm, please), and explain why these values are the right ones, and not some other value.

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?


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

Colors that can be produced by visible light of a narrow band

, in mathematical terms.

 

[Write4U]

Yes, we know that's what you believe: because the mathematical model of the world works so well, you take it to be true. However, science is a bit more careful, and doesn't make that leap of faith because there's no concrete evidence for it

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?

 

[Write4U]

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.

 

[NotEinstein]

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.

Is that specifically what you asked for?

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.

 

[Write4U]

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".

 

[NotEinstein]

I said 3 "primary colors".

Please stop lying:

Hameroff, Tegmark, and LIvio believe we see shades of all colos as a wave function consisting of ratios between three fundamental frequencies.

 

[Write4U]

Please stop lying:

Post # 242: W4U said

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

 

[NotEinstein]

Post # 242: W4U said

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

 

[Write4U]

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.

 

[NotEinstein]

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.

 

[Write4U]

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.

Any three colors (or frequencies) of light that produce white light when combined with the correct intensity are called primary colors of light.

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

Which Are the Three Primary Colors?
Red, yellow and blue are the three primary colors. Primary colors are colors that make up every other color on the color wheel, and no other colors can be combined to create red, yellow or blue. More »

www.reference.com › Science › Colors

 

[NotEinstein]

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.

 

[exchemist]

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.

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

Is that specifically what you asked for?

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.

 

[NotEinstein]

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.

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?

 

[exchemist]

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.

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!

 

[NotEinstein]

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

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.

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

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.

 

[exchemist]

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.

 

[NotEinstein]

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.