Sophi Posted November 18, 2010 Share Posted November 18, 2010 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyhook Posted November 18, 2010 Share Posted November 18, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainPanic Posted November 22, 2010 Share Posted November 22, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 22, 2010 Share Posted November 22, 2010 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemur Posted November 22, 2010 Share Posted November 22, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewmon Posted November 22, 2010 Share Posted November 22, 2010 Here's a cool website: Causes of Color Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now