What causes colours?

[Michael F. D.]

Originally posted by greg1917

I dont know, what does that have to do with anything you quoted me on? Does a constituent of the paper go into solution?

Exactly, what does have do with a quantum number, sub shells and transition metal complexes to change a colour of paper in this instance?

[greg1917]

Id hardly call going from white to a slightly darker shade a colour change seeing as the paper also goes slightly transparent - whats your point? Is this a pathetic attempt to prove 20th century chemistry wrong?

 

I never claimed that paper going slightly grey has anything to do with transition metal complexes - and anyway thats introductory level quantum chemistry, do you not believe it or something? Id think most other moderators on this site could cite a far more complex instance of some sort of quantum behaviour than I have.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by greg1917

Id hardly call going from white to a slightly darker shade a colour change seeing as the paper also goes slightly transparent - whats your point? Is this a pathetic attempt to prove 20th century chemistry wrong?

 

that's it, thanks, it sounds about right;

 

I would suspect that the water allows light to penetrate deeper into the structure, either by altering the structure in some way, or by acting as a waveguide. it would need alot of modelling though - I am just being intuitive.

[greg1917]

Its an interesting question but I never claimed it had anything to do with transition metal complexes.

 

It would alter the structure in some way i think - most paper is extremely porous thus will retain a lot of water .

[Michael F. D.]

Originally posted by Radical Edward

 

that's it, thanks, it sounds about right;

 

I would suspect that the water allows light to penetrate deeper into the structure, either by altering the structure in some way, or by acting as a waveguide. it would need alot of modelling though - I am just being intuitive.

Of course, even the most measly example "from life", which can not been explained by the theory, generates the equitable doubts in its faithfulness. Are you agree? Usually, for the such events, the paradoxes was inventing. So, what the next paradox?

[greg1917]

Of course, even the most measly example "from life", which can not been explained by the theory, generates the equitable doubts in its faithfulness.

 

Every time you post something I decipher the english, then am faced with another task of deciphering what you actually mean. Are you claiming that this single example proves the fact (not theory) of transition metal complxes wrong? Its one of a massive range of effects to do with visible EMR. The effect is still 'faithful', can be easily proven via calculations in a laboratory.

 

There is no paradox.why would there be?