I did quality control for a photo lab in the 80’s. It was my job to mix colors to make sure the photographs looked correct. So I come across this new theory in interesting engineering. I had no idea the heavy weights of Reinmann and Shrodinger weighed in on this topic. You have red green and blue and you mix them to produce grey. Now you hope increasing the brightness of each color by the same amount would continue to produce grey then into white. This does not work because the neutral grey axis is bent. Shrodinger theorized this but never defined the axis. Reinman was the first person to produce a general way to calculate lengths on bent objects. Scientists have claimed to have defined the neutral axis. This is a nice try but they will need to add night vision and produce a 4 dimensional space to be correct. Some one is goig to do the math for us and we will be given a general driver to control our light sources after the calibration curves of each light source has been entered. Schrödinger's century-old color theory completed by US scientists
As an individual I presented this hypothesis and got told to STFU. My logic was that if two people look at the same exact object, REGARDLESS of individual perception, as long as the circumstances the object was observed in were faithfully recreated, then OBJECTIVELY the color would be the exact color to each objective observer. I feel extremely vindicated that others have FINALLY arrived at the same reasoning.
**edit to add:
I first theorized this over 20 years ago, when I first learned about critical points/triple points of materials, and wondered if color could share a similar property. Only rather recently (within the past few years) did I start pitching the thought to “people of science”, and most of them told me I had no idea what I was talking about. Including a rather prominent member here, names shall not be named.
Did science have a problem with this or was it just common sense that was unproven until now?
Unless individuals have physical biological variation (for example those with colour blindness) it would seem logical to me that we see more or less the same colours.
How people feel about those colours is psychology however and may have contributed to this idea that people see colours differently.
I guess the real questions are. How much biological variation is there in the average population? And at what point do you cross the threshold into colour blindness?
I have no opinion on the schroedinger stuff, not enough information for me to form one.
There is enough of a delta that variations can occur with individual perception. HOWEVER, an object’s intrinsic properties remain its properties, the “common sense” phrase being “facts don’t care about feelings.”
**edited to add:
Science never had a problem with it, PEOPLE claiming to be of science did. It was an ego thing. **arguing from a position of knowledge and education means very little when the primary defense becomes “well that was the best information we had before”, because that heavily infers that because we don’t know what we don’t know, then just about any position of education is a best a crap shoot, and an appeal to ego rather than reasoning.
***I suppose it’s just frustrating to me that if a moron like me can figure it out, how can all these people, claiming to know much more than I and dedicating their lives to such an endeavor, realize so much less?
I honestly think I’m missing something. Hopefully a full paper or video of the conference gets released at some point.
We are trying to draw conclusions from a 3rd parties summary. Surely there is something more significant to it.
I also found the third-party article unclear, so I skimmed the original paper and wrote up a quick digest that is hopefully an accurate and accessible representation. In particular, I hope to make clear what the paper is about, and what it is not about. Enjoy!
You may find a partial answer in Figure 1 (cover page) of the original paper. In particular, a pretty noticeable proportion of participants seem unable to distinguish greenish and reddish colors.
There ya go!
I wonder if they accounted for the integrated volume below the curve. I’m not going to explain it here, I’ll let the discerning minds figure it out. It’ll be more meaningful that way.
So then, do the object’s feelings get hurt when someone sees them different?
What does this all have to do with everyday observations of color?
Not getting the great outcome.
Are there Gold Stars being awarded?
Volume of what according to what measure? What curve? “Below” according to which direction? Could you elaborate a bit more?
For the purposes of scientific discussion, being vague/unclear/imprecise makes something closer to meaningless, not more meaningful. The lack of clarity in the expository article is precisely the reason I wrote up the digest…
Attempting to corroborate color measurements across different observers is difficult because of trying to control the factors. Each observer has his or her own perception. Each lighting source has a variation, even within a given conforming standard. The slightest variation in mass, volume, shadowing, viewing surface, etc…they all add up. HOWEVER, color is not a subjective property, perception and circumstance are. The issue is that color, being a photometric value, i.e. heavily reliant on light, becomes a quantum value, thus highly variable based on the timeframe in which it is observed.
Full disclaimer, I’m not an alien nor a visitor, nor do I do drugs.
Please see my above statement…I refrain from being too specific as it would cornhole scientific progress. IF people arrive at an observation or hypothesis that I had not considered, a debate of standards/theory/logic could be had to whittle away to the least unfactual values.
One of the biggest revelations (not of my own merit nor realization) was “imaginary numbers” not actually being imaginary, but conceptual numbers. I actually hate the term “imaginary numbers” because it is spurious, and designed to put otherwise intelligent people into a conceptual ego trap; “if I cannot concieve or percieve it, then it doesn’t exist to me” rather than “hmm, how could it possibly exist, and is my scope just too limited to see it? What am I missing?”
Being too vague for people to make out what you say, on the other hand, contributes nothing at all to scientific progress.
People are only willing to spend time entertaining a new idea (even if it turns out to be a good one) if it is clearly stated and demonstrates a good-faith effort at being scientifically sound; otherwise, the idea becomes indistinguishable from actual crankery.
I am aware that you are frustrated with being dismissed as a crank, and understand your frustration. I know that you have great ideas, from our discussions about beam geometry. But having a great idea alone is not enough; you also need to sell it well, and clear exposition can help you greatly in this regard.
The broader mathematical community agrees with you!
Unfortunately, the alternative term “complex numbers” carries an unwanted connotation too. If I could choose a name, I’d go for “2D numbers” because that’s exactly what they are: they naturally describe a 2-dimensional geometry and add/multiply just like “real” numbers.
My biggest issue isn’t being considered crank, it’s when detractors and naysayors take the ideas and publish it as their own without even trying to understand the entirety of the theory. Edison did it, the CIA does it, NASA generally does it, NDT does it, and an alarming numbet of the directly influential “scientific” community does it.
Certain portions of humanity are so greedy and irresponsible that they are fully willing to seize credit, but unwilling to accept accountability when things go wrong due to having an incomplete frame of reference, then pin the fault on the “crankers”.
I believe that you are far removed from that “ilk”, and trust your individual observations as you actually construct and devise your own mechanisms; this doesn’t mean much coming from a nobody like me, but I would hold your revelations and progress in much higher standing than any of the regurgitator parties mentioned above.
In regards to the “vagueness” of the curve volume idea, it’s a breadcrumb.. I have very little doubt that you in particular will be able to figure it out eventually, and already may have, given your forays into optics and beamshaping.
**edit to add
If I could double like your post I would
I see. Unfortunately, this tends to be a repeating theme throughout human history.
I really appreciate that.
One of my favorite things about abstract sciences like mathematics is that the notion of a “nobody” doesn’t really exist, at least in my worldview. Ideas are valid or invalid for intrinsic reasons that anyone can independently verify with pencil and paper, regardless of who came up with the idea. The “reproducibility” required by the scientific method can be satisfied perfectly. No need for fancy lab equipment (at least before the era of computer-assisted proofs), and no need to take anything or trust anyone on faith.
Unfortunately, there also exists another type of regurgitation, which consists of taking whatever one hears, believing it without performing any consistency checks, and passing it on as a fact. This tends to happen a lot even in this community, especially on the subject of brightness perception.
There are many different models for brightness perception (i.e., perceived brightness as a function of lumens), and there is no consensus on which one best models what we see. However, oftentimes I see claims of one model being the absolute truth, or even worse, claims of completely different models being the same thing. While which model is best is up for debate, such claims are simply and unambiguously wrong.
I see that you meant it as food for thought or conversation starter, gotcha.
Hopefully one that gets the neurons flowing, lol. Being too specific can steer the conversation or discoveries into a “this or that” state, which given the sheer number of possibilities out there, seems like a rather limited way of thinking, lol…
You must all know because this goes way over my head when reading the banter I hear it in the voice of Sheldon Cooper from Big Bang Theory.
He would of course add extra Snark but great just the same.
Helps it flow better.
Peace out, Carry on!
If you make a red LED bright enough it looks yellow. This is what the paper was all about. The color shift according to brightness. Even at ordinary brightness there are color shifts in grey. Color theory uses the concept of just noticible difference. What we are talking about is what averages of a bunch of people think is the perfect grey. Even this is problematical since there are two commen red receptors where people disagree what the perfect red is. People are going to take this seriously and manufacture computer screens taking this into account.