From Newton's theory and Goethe's poetry to the reality of light and colour

Before anything else

If some of you are wondering for what kind of possible reasons one could be leaving a post in the middle of an unfinished sentence, or perhaps why one publishes posts before they are finished, or why sometimes one finishes them many days after they have been published, I truly believe that I should say a few words about those issues myself, even if by doing so I'm certainly aware that I will ruffle some new feathers and completely alienate others (very likely for good).

You see, the simple and plain truth is that I do not care one bit if anyone reads my pages, or not. A few years ago, I had another website, which in a very short period of time acquired over 1500 subscribers--which for a site that wasn't listed anywhere near the first five, or ten, or even twenty pages of google, was pretty remarkable. Then, one day I asked my readers a certain question and gave them two weeks to answer. Two weeks later there was not even a single reply in my inbox. I then wrote a quick post letting them know that I had deleted all their accounts from my database and that from that moment on the website shall become a ghost site. 

My labour is a labour of love. I know where I stand and I'm acutely aware of everything that I have done--be it good or bad, stupid or clever, shameful or commendable, worthy or worthless. I regret a million things, and if I had another shot at life, I'd do just about everything differently. I'm painfully aware that I am prone to put both my feet in my mouth on a regular basis, and that many a time I just cannot believe how incredibly distorted my thoughts materialise into the words I speak or lay down. However painful that knowledge may be, nonetheless I have never gone back to make any changes or to try to get rid of (or hide from the public eye) the incriminating reality. That was in fact one of my first pledges many years ago, when I started writing online. And there was another pledge that I have never broken: That, in writing, my first draft will also remain my final draft as well.

Finally, for this impromptu beginning, I want to say that in the last post that I didn't finish (which was the previous one, of course) the title was so bad that I decided to terminate the whole post as soon as I realised that. That's because to my mind neither Newton's theory of light and colours was a true "reality", nor Goethe's theory of colours was a complete "fantasy". And even if, to my mind, Newton's vision of light and colours is indisputably a much better scientific theory than Goethe's so-called theory of colours, I can truly understand how Goethe was driven into his vision of colours by the idea that if black and white are the diametrically opposed absolute entities in the physics of light and darkness then there could hardly be any better phenomena that could explain the myriad of colours on the universal display. But the truth, to my mind, is that the physical reality is quite a bit subtler than that seemingly rational and logical line of reasoning. For a number of reasons, as far as I'm concerned, of which none is more important (and in the end definitive) than that, which to my mind, is that the concept of both black and white is entirely metaphysical. Which simply and uncompromisingly means that neither black nor white can exist in the physical Universe. To my mind black and white are as real as are the mathematical concepts of zero and infinite. Or of nothingness and everythingness. Just as you'll never find a physical object of zero/infinite size, or one made out of nothing/everything, so you will never find anywhere in this Universe anything absolutely black, or absolutely white. Think about it.

In my previous post I argued that in order to fully account for all colours of light there is neither room nor need for any additional spectra (beside the Newtonian one) or any of Goethe's views on the nature of colour. Then, in order to prove my point, I claimed that I will account (both qualitatively and quantitatively) for all possible prismatic observations by using only the RGB spectrum. To that end I then presented the diagram below and proceeded to explain every colour seen in a subjective observation in which the prism was oriented with its apex pointing to the observer's left.

In addition to the diagram above I also presented a second depiction of it, in which to the elements of the first one I added the usual colours that emerge in a prismatic observation conducted from a distance of about 70-80 cm. A note of interest about that second diagram was the comment someone made about it. It read "There's no cyan next to the red square", and now I will reply to that observation. 

The reality is that there is a band of cyan next to the red rectangle, albeit a rather fainter and narrower one than that which my original picture depicted. So, to some extent, the comment was justified, and thus, as I write this, I am hitting my chest three times as a public acknowledgement of mea culpa. I have also made the necessary changes in the diagram below.

Now, in my previous post I explained how those so-called boundary colours seen next to the black rectangles 1,2,3 can be fully accounted for by using the Newtonian theory and my own humble contribution to the matter, concerned with the nature of refraction of the three primary colours in subjective prismatic observations. But that was the easy task within the whole picture, as we'll very soon realise. Before getting there though let me say a few words about the reason for those black rectangles and a few more about the things Newton got right about the matter at stake and the current physicists appear to have blissfully either not understand, forgotten, or perhaps by choice ignored.

The reason for using those black rectangles is very simple: Due to the nature of how the spectral colours behave in subjective prismatic experiments, when they are properly used, they become the easiest and most accurate points of reference relative to which we can determine how sources of light of virtually all possible colours are deflected by a triangular prism. Thus, in our case above, due to the fact that the 1,2,3 rectangles are symmetrically lined up--relative to the observing prism--with the R, G and B sources of light, and as a consequence of the previously mentioned factors, the observer can determine immediately if the R,G,B rectangles appear to be in any way deflected by the prism. To those familiar with my work, it should already have occurred by now that the black rectangles in our current example (in which the sources under observation are displayed against a white background) play the same role as the white rectangles I have used in the past in order to monitor the behaviour of differently coloured sources of light cast upon black backgrounds.

At this point I'd like to think that an astute reader with strong Goethean leanings (and who is necessarily familiar with my work) should be ready to confront me with a number of pretty solid arguments, as well as with a substantial list of pertinent questions. Before addressing those issues though I'd like to tell you a story that happened a few months ago.

Some time in the first half of last year a friend of mine (who is a physicist with pretty strong Goethean leanings) wrote a paper in which he outlined his views about why Goethe's Theory of colour should be formally accepted as a valid alternative to Newton's theory of light and colours. Before submitting it to a certain journal he asked me, amongst a group of others, to review his paper and offer any opinions or suggestions I might have about it. I was greatly flattered by his invitation, and over the following couple of weeks I read the paper very carefully a number of times and then made a handful of personal suggestions in regard to some points I was quite certain about. A day or two later he sent me an email in which he graciously informed me that after he had thought in earnestness about my suggestions, he completely agreed that they were valid. I was naturally pleased to see that he had weighed and acknowledged my little input with genuine objectivity, yet for the next week or so I could not free myself from the unrelenting pressure of knowing that by far the most important suggestion that I had held all along about the paper I could not reveal, to a man I truly viewed as a friend. So, in the end I could no longer bear the weight of those thoughts and one early morning I sent an email to my young friend in which I asked him to reconsider submitting his paper in its current form and to re-write it after analysing, with the same objectivity he had already shown, the following issues...

There is no doubt in my mind that I can show any objective mind that Newton's theory of light and colours goes a long way in accounting for the results of most subjective and objective prismatic experiments and that, by (an absolute measure of) contrast, Goethe's theory of colours cannot account even for its own, first subjective observation. Moreover, there is also no doubt in my mind that my own understanding of the subject goes as far past Newton's as Newton's has past Goethe's. I'll see you next time for the demonstration.

The Newtonian reality vs The Goethean fantasy in colour theory. If you can handle truth, here you'll find the evidence.

When it comes to colour theory there is no doubt in my mind that today there are many more followers of Goethe's vision on the subject than Newton's. Every single day I receive in my inbox dozens and dozens of notifications about new papers, articles, videos and books purporting in no uncertain terms that Goethe's theory of colours is, at the very least, as true and valid scientifically as Newton's own. But the simple reality is that those claims are simply, plainly, clearly and thoroughly demonstrably, absolutely false. And in this post I'll show you that what I've just said is true. Let's go.

One of those many followers of Goethe's vision of colour is the physicist Pehr Salstrom. Salstrom is the author of a great number of papers, articles, videos, websites and lectures whose only topic of discussion is Goethe's great insights into the colour phenomena as opposed to Newton's quite superficial and murky views on the subject. Unfortunately for Salstrom the real truth is that his own vision on the subject is so debilitatingly myopic that he can barely see a tree at a time, never mind a forest. For instance, on the page called Goethe, Newton and the physics of colour of his website he writes:

In "Beiträge zur Optik" Goethe advises us to look through a glass prism and observe the colour phenomena that appear. It soon becomes evident to the observer that colours appear at distinct borders between dark and bright areas in the field of view. If you vary the geometrical conditions you find that all of the various configurations can be boiled down to four principal spectra: The two border-spectra and and the two aperture-spectra and .

Then he shows the image below, supposedly as a confirmation of the paragraph above.

The painful truth however (for Salstrom and the like, of course) is that everything above is so easily shown to be blatantly unsatisfactory that, for all intents and purposes, their scientific value is exactly nought, zilch, zero, nothing, bugger all. Let me show you why.

Take first the picture above and read carefully the explanation given. What do you think about that? Whatever you may think the truth is that both what is shown and what's said is basically a genuine example of pure crap. Firstly, because of these statements:

The black-and-white picture to the left is viewed through a glass prism. It then looks as shown to the right.

That's not necessarily true. Not at all. To see that what I said is true grab a triangular prism, hold it with its apex pointing to your left and look at the left figure above. Does it look at all with what is shown in the picture on the right? Absolutely not. For instance, from a distance of about 80 cm, and with the prism oriented as I mentioned what you will see is what's shown below on the right.

(Now, let me say this: I dare you, Pehr Salstrom, or anyone else in this world, to come forward and explain what is shown above on the right by using Goethe's theory of colours. Come on, people, I will be waiting eagerly for your Goethean reply.)

It's clearly obvious that Salstrom--and everybody else, beside my humble self--has no idea what exactly determines the colours that will invariably be seen in all subjective observations. To my mind it's an absolutely flabbergasting fact that for three and a half centuries not one of our highly educated physicists has managed to resolve even such an embarrassingly simple matter. 

And there then is this other moronic declaration in Salstrom's cited paragraph above:

If you vary the geometrical conditions you find that all of the various configurations can be boiled down to four principal spectra: The two border-spectra  and  and the two aperture-spectra  and .

What is this guy saying!? That there are four principal (whatever that means) spectra and that the RGB and CMY are aperture-spectra (whatever that's supposed to mean)!!??

In stark contrast to Salstrom's declaration I will tell you a much, much simpler little piece of truth. Which is that I can thoroughly account (meaning qualitatively and quantitatively too) for all conceivable subjective observations by using one, and only one, spectrum: The Newtonian RGB trio

Let us begin with a new, and hitherto unknown, fact. Which is that in subjective prismatic observations the primary colours do not refract at all if they are cast against a white background. Let me now provide you with a valid demonstration of that statement. (See the diagram below.)

To prove that what I said is true we will observe the diagram above through a triangular prism (held with the apex pointing to the left) from a distance of about 70-80 cm. Following that I will then account (both qualitatively and quantitatively, as I promised) for every colour that will be seen by the observer. Finally, as we'll proceed ahead, I will also explain the reasons for those black and magenta rectangles.

So, let us begin our prismatic observation now.

Next, I will drop another diagram below, which will basically depict all colours that you have observed through your prism a few moments ago.

I shall begin by first accounting for those colours on display between rectangle number 1 and 2, respectively. On the right there is a quite broad Y band and a much narrower R one, while on the left we have a broad B band and a narrow C one. The first important thing to note is that the width of the Y is equal to the width of the B. Similarly, the widths of the C and R are also the same. Both sets of colours, which physicists call (unjustifiably) the boundary spectra, are generated by the white area between the black rectangles when it is looked at through a prism. For those who don't know, the original width of that white area is now identical numerically to the sum of the current widths of the white part, the C band and the Y one. Therefore, we also know with absolute certainty that the B and the R bands have been deflected by our prism in opposite directions and are currently occupying areas that formerly were part of the two black (1 and 2) rectangles. So, once again, C and Y are sitting on white, and B and R are sitting on black.

And now we're ready to explain (qualitatively and quantitatively) how the colours in question have come into existence, after all. It's all so simple and straightforward that I should really add nothing to the above. But... 

The area that to the naked eye appeared white (see the first, un-prismatic picture) was really the effect of a B, G and R superposition of three different wavelengths of light. Observing that white area through a prism, however, is visually altered in the following manner. The B part of the white rectangle is dramatically moved in the direction of the apex of the prism; the R part, on the other hand, is moved--significantly less--in the direction where the base of the prism is pointing. These two prismatic deflections change--in a direct and proportionate manner--the formerly perfectly symmetric superposition of lights. Thus, as a direct and proportional effect, the movement of the B towards the left has left an area equal in size where there are now only two superimposed upon each other colours, those of R and G, of course. The area in question is therefore Y, and it is exactly of the same size with that of the B area of displacement. Conversely, the displacement of the R towards the right has left an area equal in size to its own, where only two of the primary colours are still superimposed upon each other. And those two specific colours are, naturally, the B and G ones. Hence the C band on the left.