The reason there's color is because of different wavelengths of light, right? Does that mean if there's no light at all, then things are actually colorless?

Like if a there's a red box in a room with no windows, and you turn the lights off, then does that mean the red box isn't really red anymore? Or is it still red?

 

 

If you turn off the lights, it will be darkness inside the room.

The material that is a red box, absorb other wavelengths and reflect red wavelength. so we see red. but If a person is colour-blind, he may see black colour. I think a red box still has the properties of a red box.

You're asking us whether "color" is ascribed to the actual reflection/absorption of light on a material, or to the chemical properties of the material itself which make it reflect/absorb light.

 

If it is the first, then there is no color in complete darkness.

If it is the latter, then the color is still red, because the material properties haven't changed.

 

I don't know which one it is. A first glance at Google results suggests that "color" has more to do with our eyes than with the material properties - so absence of light would suggest that the material is black, or colorless.

It sounds like kind of a zen issue. Color is a combination of physical properties, ambient light, and human perception.

 

Check out the link in this post by ewmon

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/52540-color/page__p__570454#entry570454

 

edit: or skip two posts down

I don't get why people formulate questions in this way. First you discover that the property, color, could be attributed to light-wavelength or chemical properties of paint. Then, instead of simply defining color as a non-essential property, you try to re-establish essentialism by suggesting that color could somehow be due more to one constituent than another. All that does is obfuscate your initial finding that color cannot be reduced to a single essence in the first place, imo.

Here's a cool website: Causes of Color