mfw there is no single, universally standardized professional table that maps electromagnetic wave frequencies to visible colors with absolute precision

also

mfw the space between two colors in the visible spectrum can be divided infinitely, producing new distinguishable colors

>>16712911 (OP)
wow there is no one-to-one correspondence between EM waves and our biological receptors
shocker
it’s almost as if eyes aren’t antennae

>>16712911 (OP)
Google "fourier transform", the results will shock you

>>16712933
Nigga, visible light isn’t usually a time-domain signal like sound, so classical Fourier Transform doesn’t apply directly to a single color the same way it does to audio.

>>16712937
>fourier transform can only happen in the time-domain

>>16712939
btfo. you won

>>16712937
>this is what enginiggers actually believe
my fucking sides
You can do Fourier transforms on any locally compact topological group. For example on a sphere (you get spherical harmonics).

Interesting thought... if you had a CCD sensor with a wide range in sensitivity for wavelengths, and covered it with different narrow bandpass filters, if you compensated for the sensor's quantum efficiency to create a flat distribution could you produce a sort of grayscale image that accurately captures how humans might view details if we had a flat, wide wavelength response instead of our narrow trinormal wavelength response?

something something quantum mechanics something something photons

>>16712911 (OP)
>can be divided infinitely, producing new distinguishable colors

>>16712911 (OP)
colors only exist in the brain.

>>16712911 (OP)
Most colors don't have a single frequency.

>>16712911 (OP)
Color Designation For Lights, K. L. Kelly, 1943

Retards still believe the opposite of Green is Red when it's actually Magenta
>b-but there are different models
Don't you think that expose a flaw in color theory? Think fucker.

>>16712911 (OP)
Technically aren't you limited by the Planck length as to how much you can divide a photon's wavelength? Shrimply get 50%+1 of all mankind to agree EXACTLY on the dividing like for every single color down the the Planck length, problem solved.

>>16713756
>limited by the Planck length
evidence?

>>16713756
Limited by the Planck length how? Our current quantum theories don't say light is indivisible beyond that.

>>16712937
>classical Fourier Transform doesn’t apply directly to a single color the same way it does to audio.
I am too, somewhat of a mathematician myself

>>16713784
>>16713929
Isn't the Planck length the point at which we just *can't* realistically measure shit? Sure maybe you can keep infinitely dividing light beyond that on paper, but for an arbitrary cutoff, that seems handy.

>>16713967
No, it's just the point where the Standard Model breaks down as the effects of gravity cannot be ignored.
However, the Standard Model predicts that photons can continuously occupy all energy levels (so all wavelengths are possible).

>>16713065
Is OP wrong?

>>16713367
>in the brain
lol, no. the mind is not the brain

>>16714603
Indeed, it's only a very tiny, overall insignificant part of the brain.

>>16712919
eyes are antennae
but they work in quantum regime

>>16714602
yes, of course he is
like anything else, energy is quantized, so certain "hues" cannot be produced

>>16713969
there is an infinite number of energy levels but they are quantized, they map onto Z
there is no such thing as a wavelength of pi meters

I thought I was going to laugh at some retards since I know a bit of color theory, it just so happens that I'm not actually a /sci/tizen, and don't know shit about waves and particles
guess I'll leave you with this factoid, analog film can reproduce more colors than the human eye can see

>>16712911 (OP)
>what is a gromov metric?

>>16714660
How little you know. And yet you consider yourself a scientist.

>>16714922
Lol. You're wrong. And you're so sure about your wrong beliefs...

>>16715179
I eagerly await your rebuttal
in the form of a constructive proof

>>16714934
We can't measure wavelengths (or anything else) precisely enough for that to be anything we need to care about.

>>16712911 (OP)
Im glad I found this thread on 2 tabs of acid

>>16712911 (OP)
>no single, universally standardized professional table that maps electromagnetic wave frequencies to visible colors with absolute precision
The closest you'll find are Lab color and similar models, then tied into a calibrated colorimetry sensor.
>the space between two colors in the visible spectrum can be divided infinitely, producing new distinguishable colors
Not at all true. Human color vision is amazing but still has limits.

>>16712911 (OP)

>>16712911 (OP)
>there's no granularity
There is.
>but I can't tell
Correct. The granularity is fine enough that you are unable to tell that it is granular. This stems directly from electron energy states.
This also ignores that the granularity is an illusion of the medium, as wavelength is mediated by electrons.
>>16713701
>flaw in color theory
>different color theory for light and paints
Uhhhhh....
>>16714922
>energy is quantized
>because we use quanta to detect it
>no, I don't understand what that means, what do you mean I'm retarded?

>>16715422
there's human percieved color and actual color, right? as, simplifying we can percieve 100 colors but there's actualy 482 colors

>>16716816
what's ur take on the light and p8gment color models though?

>>16718344
no, see
>>16713367
>>16713371
color is made up by the brain to let us see the difference of activation of our cones.

>>16718348
can't we make objective wavelength measures or something of the sort? photography white balance and automated color calibration come to mind

>>16718377
*automated monitor calibration through external device

>>16718377
Again, most colors can't be reproduced with a single wavelength. Cameras don't use wavelength either but color filters, a bit like our eyes. Most color calibration tools also work that way. Colors are generated by our brain based on the difference of activation of our 3 cones, and those cones activate not for a single frequency but for part of the spectrum. Since only the amount of activation is important, we can use light with various frequencies to get the same amount of activation, look at the spectra of CRT vs LCD monitors for example.
We can measure wavelength that we can't see, but since our brains are what generate the colors in the first place, it doesn't make much sense to invent names for "colors" that nobody can see.

>>16713756
its literally irrelevant what colors frequencies are, its not useful for anything, scientists dont care

If I took the colors RGB and added them to a 6 sided cube, would the colors align with direction, as in 1 color will be for Up,Down 1 color for Front,Back and 1 color for Left,Right ?

>>16718416
check digital color spaces, I think they call them LUTs, they're 3d, but the shape is a bit abstract, not really a cube, because, simplifying, green is lighter than blue and the scale has to account also for lightness, saturation, etc
the LAB color space is interesting as well, not very sure what it stands for, I think they try to measure "objective" color, to compensate the deficits other color spaces have

>>16716810
Nice model showing the prepondurance of green in our vision.
Of note, the old OS/2 operating system from IBM had a significantly larger chunk of it's 16 million colors set to greens. In the early days of color PCs it made a huge difference on some tasks.
>>16718344
There are as many or as few colors as your equipment can measure. If that's Human Mk. 1 eyeballs, it's about 16 million (32bit) colors. Dogs and other quadripeds see in a two-tone that we interpret as yellow/tan and purples or salmon, but that's only our interpretation as dogs and deer can see further into IR than we can, and deer also see significantly into UV.
>>16718377
Objective, yes, but it's not a single frequency. This is also why there is often controversy around satellite imagery - most satellites use CCDs with filter wheels to do a reverse of >>16718402, and produce images of a single frequency. These scientific images can be studied in depth for specific materials. They are then recombined into false-color image that always drive conspiracy theorists up a wall.
Another thing that has only been touched on a little ITT is the difference between physical and digital colors. Paints are made from minerals or synthetic colors and binders, there is no such thing as a true red or pure blue paint. It's always based on the starting material. Paint is subtractive color, it gets darker as more colors are added. Digital and old school video are additive displays, going up from black to white.
>>16718548
That's where LAB fails, too, because color is incredibly subjective.
Here's a comprehensive page on the history of color models and a new "VCH" color model for viewing colors relatively in 3d space:
https://meganck.com/2020/06/18/understanding-color/

heya fellow colorfags, here's some goodies
"lab srgb adobe RGB 3d comparison" put that into google => images, and you'll see some "3d color spaces" but this post:
>>16718633
also has some in it in the source at the bottom

>>16712937
>all photons have an amplitude, a frequency, and a velocity
>all sound waves have an amplitude, a frequency, and a velocity
>both can be described using complex-exponential wavefunctions
>you're not allowed to use the Fourier transform on signals made up of photons DOE
Explain why, without resorting to "because you just can't, okay??!"