petrushka.googol

 

Like everything Freud said, this was just made up. I don't think anything he said has any truth in it. (If it does, it is purely by chance.) I find it hard to understand how he is still treated with any sort of respect.

Freud was the founder of psychoanalysis.....it is widely used to treat anxiety disorders.

Freud linked hysteria to problems with libido and an Oedipus complex. Any truth in that ?

Is hysteria linked to the uterus in women as documented in ancient Egypt and the writings of Plato ?

Aging isn't a good descriptive. Yes neutrinos do decay. Though their mean lifetime varies.

 

http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Bowyer/Bowyer6_1.html

 

not sure what your referring to by artifacts of creation. Figuratively speaking everything we see and measure today is a result of the beginning. Albeit in different states.

Then "neutrino dating" similar to radio carbon dating cannot be used to reverse engineer the early state of the Universe. But then neutrinos are ubiquitous.....

As we are all aware neutrinos have been emitted from the big bang (approx 13.7 billion years ago). Does aging impact these neutrinos?

Will they decay or lose momentum ? Will there be any artifacts from the big bang after another 13 billion years ?

The thing is that colour is entirely subjective so "white" means different things to different people at different times.

 

Color is subjective but light as a physical entity is not. I find that an anomalous paradox of sorts....

But it doesn't work like a spectrometer. There are only 3 wavelength dependent types of sensor with broad overlap. That's how a TV can make lots of colours with only 3 colour emitters.

What I'm trying to say is that the white we see is limited by our limited perception (10 million colors). If we had a better sensor (eye) capable of tapping say, 20 million colors what we interpret as white would possibly not be so.

From what I gatther the human eye can discern a max of 10 million colors. Differentiating a continuous spectrum to this accuracy is as close to "white" as we can get.

Petruska: Interesting idea, robotic eye. This would be a superior eye in some respects to an organic eye. Still, both are only cameras and see nothing, no color, no anything. The robot could be programmed to say red when exposed to red frequencies and could report white with certain mixes of light. The robot would need strong AI to actually see colors in it's computer brain.The red-green afterimage experiment wouldn't work as the robot wouldnt have cones that selectively bleach after firing too much. as the frequency of the perceived red and green are the same. We assign colors to certain frequencies but colors are determined by our perception of the frequency.

 

Dogs are dichromats. Two cones. They accurately identify many colors but not as well as us and we can never see like a dog even if we were dichromats. They overall access their environment well but rely more on smell and hearing. My poodle was blind at 6 months but people often dont detect this.Get a treat near him and he accurately homes in on it.

He smells better than I do.

Lol. Although slightly off topic......

Actually seeing is in the occipital cortex. The eye sees nothing.A beautiful construct that takes lousy pictures that are"computer enhanced by our brain. Hubble was myopic , but computer enhancement cleared pictures a lot. It was later corrected. Expensive glasses! Sever the optic nerves and you see nothing though the eyes work fine.

 

Stare at a green square a while, then look to the right at a white wall.. You'll see a red square. Note that the colors are vastly different and the light frequency didnt change. After bleaching the green cones, the fresher red cones prevail and we call the same light red. So what color is the light? The observer determins that.

As a control let me put forward a "robot eye", designed to register colors based on frequencies and bandwidth. Would the above still apply ? Would "white" still be white ?

That depends on how you define colour. If you define it as the frequency of light then the observer doesn't matter. That's not a very human way to define it though.

But then here we are talking physics and optics.....

LOL. Phyisics is full of abstractions.

LOL Faux Pas.

From the most recent posts I'm inclined to conjecture that the "white" light that we receive from a source like the Sun is not always "White" (although as stated aforesaid the eye makes us believe otherwise).

Am I on the right track ?

Supercontinuous sources exist for a given range.

 

What do you mean by all frequencies? Even a single source that does THz to UV is non trivial. If even possible.

 

And equal amount, amount of what? Photons, energy, intensity?

Photons.

 

What do you mean by "essentially stable"? If you can't explain what you are asking, I don't see how anyone can answer it.

 

"White" light is the subjective impression of a particular mix of frequencies/colours. (Although, as noted, our brains will adjust this so that we still see light as "white" even if it is definitely not white on an object measurement.)

 

You can achieve white in several ways: an equal amount of all frequencies or from just three primary colours (red, green, blue).

Is it possible to generate an equal amount of all frequencies in the lab ?

Physics does not rely on abstractions. I am trying to ascertain the cause as to why the combination of different frequencies in white light is essentially stable.

I heard that too in Russia so yea I think it is universal. if more then one countries study shows those results most other countries should have the same results because then the results are based on the human race rather then a specific culture.

Judging from nutritional data and eating habits I guess culture does affect the path to failure rather than failure itself.

Mam since you hail from Russia I guess caviar and vodka would be the prime culprits. Do you agree ?

This is why I asked my still unanswered question about what he means by colour. I think including what he means by white light is also probably relevant at this point.

color = frequency.

white light = mixture of frequencies.

Why is it that the mixture is always perfect ? (All colors combine to get the notion of white.). My poser is "Why is the perception always the same?" (give or take a few photons....).

I heard that too in Russia so yea I think it is universal. if more then one countries study shows those results most other countries should have the same results because then the results are based on the human race rather then a specific culture.

As I have stated the effect is driven by biochemical changes rather than individual traits. (although I guess risk factors like obesity tip the scale adversely.).

 

Do you have any evidence for this "coupling"? What effect does it have, that is not explained by current theory?

Having photons of excited to different frequencies maintaining their inherent state and relationship and always combining to give the notion of white light seems to be more than random coincidence. If any group of photons loses energy then the continuous spectrum will be broken.

As a corollary, how does dispersion actually happen ? Photons are split by frequency (which is why we get the notion of colors. What I am trying to suggest is that there is some sort of internal coupling or harmonization that takes place (based on different frequencies), which can be sampled when dispersion takes place.

PS maybe entanglement is the wrong word.

Why would the end product be white? If I used a prism and then an inverted prism what would happen to the photons?

The word "Entangled" has a specific meaning and I don't think it applied here.

The different coloured photons in white light are not entangled, they just happen to be following more or less the same path as each other.

Is this statistically possible ? Energy of a photon depends on it's frequency (which also determines it's color) so photons of different colors are more likely to be dissociated (rather than following the same path).

Photons have zero rest mass. Splitting of light produces photons of different colors. You can't get something out of nothing. Then where did these photons come from? Photons can't divide.So they must preexist. (entangled).

As an extension could we apply axiomatic built in symmetries aka Bell's theorem to the entangled photons. Photons of color have a built in symmetry and the collapse of the wave function in the absence of a frequency differentiator viz. a prism always yields white light.

 

I wish to define a particle as _MP^c where M = mass of the particle and c = color of particle. P -> particle = photon. Integration of a continuous spectrum of discrete colors on subscript (mass) yields zero and integration of superscript (color) over the same yields white color. This is perceived as a wave. (transverse waves).

Integration of photons in my illustration = integration of entangled photons at discrete energy levels (frequencies) ....