Red and Blue refract in opposite directions; Green, Yellow and Cyan do not refract at all.

 

The simplest things are hardest to discover. This truism is probably most evident in science, and I've been fortunate to become a direct eyewitness to one of its concrete manifestations.

For 350 years no one has managed to discover what was undoubtedly the most astonishingly obvious flaw in Newton's theory of light and colours. Not even Goethe managed to see it, and I have a very good reason for mentioning only his name out of many, many others.  That very good reason I have is perfectly encapsulated in what is arguably the most popular artefact designed by Goethe in his long study of colours. See below.

On the right we can see the four spectral colours, which Goethe called boundary colours. They appear to an observer who looks at the figure with the four black and white rectangles through a prism that is oriented with the apex pointing down.

Now, without saying anything more than what I already have, can you see the flaw in Newton's theory that I have been talking about? 

However lenient one may be with anyone, the reality is that even without a prism, anyone should not have too much trouble noticing that Red is 'looking' UP whilst Blue is 'looking' DOWN. How much easier should be to notice that, then, with a prism. One shouldn't even have to look through it at Goethe's diagram. Indeed, it would suffice to hold the prism in front of the figure, halfway along the middle line with the base up and apex down, for anyone to easily see then that Blue and Red extend in opposite directions. This is in stark contrast to Newton's view that all colours are bent, refracted, or deflected in the same direction by a prism.

And that is all that it should have taken anyone to spot what is in truth a major flaw in Newton's celebrated theory. As it stands, though, no one has managed to detect it in 350 years of intense research. Not even Goethe, as I said.

Have a good look at the two images below. The first contains a diagram that can fully verify, or otherwise falsify, the statement in the title when it is used in a subjective prismatic observation. Specifically, we'll be looking at it through an equilateral prism (oriented with the apex towards the left) from a distance of about 50cm. When one does that, one sees the first image transformed into the second one below it. Moreover, if one claims that one knows what's going on in that transformational process then one ought to provide a concrete and coherent explanation for every single spectral item that is visible in the second picture. Otherwise, one has obviously no idea about what causes those features.

According to the significant experience that I have accumulated on that topic over the years, there is a strong possibility that there isn't another person able to do what is required in that matter. Another person than myself, that is.

We begin by explaining the reason for the black and white bars that are sitting above those three columns of colours under scrutiny. The reason for my putting them there is the fact that they provide precise points of reference relative to which we can monitor whether the G, C and Y rectangles are deflected from their original positions by the prism.

Now, let us look at the top of the middle column, which has a narrow black bar in the first image and in the other the trio of colours that is also called the Goethean spectrum: Y, M, C. This, sometimes called inverse spectrum, is generated by the white background upon which the black bar in the first image rests. The narrow black bar is not seen in the second picture because it has been covered by the overlapping of R and B, with B coming from the white field on the right of the black bar, and R from that on the left. As we know, R is deflected in the direction towards the base of the prism, and B in the opposite direction, towards the apex. Together they form M, which is exactly as wide as the black bar. Y appears on the left of M, at a relatively large distance. C is on the right of M and much closer to it. All three appear to have the same width. And now we are at my favourite part of the explanation for this case. My favourite because I have good reason to believe that no one, beside me, knows what the correct answer must be to the following question: What is the reason for the gaps between the three complementary colours?

The reason is the fact that the two spectra generated by the white background are not only deflected upon observation. They have also much larger widths, which when in combination with the deflection increases the overall effect. In fact, the widths of the colours in this case are the same as those of their counterparts from the other two columns. That's easily verifiable. It is only the distance between observer and subject that determines the widths of the spectral colours, as you can readily see when looking at those two counterparts I had mentioned earlier. And this fact tells a different story for those gaps between the colours than one may believe. The four spectral colours (Y R B and C) overlap on larger areas than we may be led to believe, which leads to two inevitable situations: R to overlap C, and B to overlap Y. Both situations create white patches, hence...

Before getting into the next case, it is very important to realise that a subjective observer can understand quite a lot more of the subject when every observation conducted involves not only observation from a distance, but also observation of all points of reference along the perpendicular axis. For those who do not really know what I am talking about, it means observation conducted in the following manner. Place yourself at a distance from the monitor that is roughly an arm extension away. Hold your prism with the apex pointing to your left and look carefully at the image in front of you. When satisfied, begin taking the prism very slowly away from your eye towards the monitor. There's no need to immediately try to follow the prism, you can get a good perspective from where your head is, for the time being. Finally, in order to see clearly how the unfolding of the entire phenomena evolves, you can place your eye close to the prism, which is practically touching the screen, and repeat the process, in reverse. 

Let us look next at the RGB spectral trio right below in the middle column. Here we can see that the G component of the spectrum is perfectly lined up with the M, which means therefore that G has not been deflected at all from its original position. That also means that R had been deflected by the prism in a direction towards its base, and that B had been deflected in the opposite direction. There is no other way. And the most beautiful part of all this is that anyone can literally see how that happens simply by looking through their prism (apex to the left) at the narrow white bar that generated the RGB bars, while moving slowly the prism closer and closer to the monitor.

Staying with the middle column, the next spectral display is that generated by the G bar. There is not much to notice here, except that the G component is most dominant, with only very narrow bands of R and B barely showing on each side of the G bar. One particular thing is worth mentioning in this case, however.  That is that R and B are always projected onto the (black) background. In other words, they are never encroaching into the original width of the light source.

The next item we'll scrutinise is one of the most interesting in our entire panoply of spectra. Looking subjectively at the C bar in the middle column, we observe that from our distance of 0.5 m the original C bar appears to be perfectly G! At a first glance this might seem like a most surprising occurrence. A closer inspection, however, reveals that there is nothing exceptional about that. Looking carefully at the C bar whilst moving the prism closer and closer to the screen shows us why from a distance the C bar appears G. The B component of C is increasingly deflected towards the apex of the prism, leaving behind the other component of C, which is of course G. (Although this is basically what happens in this case we shall return to this subject very soon, for there are still a number of very important implications that need to be discussed.)

Red and Blue refract in opposite directions in objective experiments too

 

According to the conventional understanding there are two kinds of prismatic experiments: subjective and objective. The subjective experiments are basically understood to be those in which the observer is thought to be interfering with the experiment. The objective prismatic experiments are understood to be those in which the observer is thought not to be interfering with the experiment. Thus, if the experimenter is looking through a prism at a source of light, what he sees is deemed to be a subjective observation. Conversely, if the experimenter is looking at some screen upon which a prismatic image has been intercepted, his observation is deemed to be objective. Furthermore, if the experimenter substitutes his eye with the eye of some recording device, like a camera, the observation thus acquired is still considered to be subjective. If, on the other hand, the experimenter uses a camera to record a prismatic image captured on a screen, the observation acquired is considered to be objective. 

Now, with all these things being said, I want to ask the conventional physicist what kind of observation is the one captured in the image below.

Think carefully before trying to sell me a hybrid story (half subjective, half objective, blah, blah) for there is a prismatic image intercepted by the same screen upon which your so-called objective image is recorded. And if you're still defiant and start concocting other stories to try to justify your position, I will show you even more confronting images that will make your skin crawl with the fear of your time coming to an inevitable end. Images like this

and this

and this

Needless to say, the conventional physicist has treated the so-called subjective experiments much differently than those so-called objective ones. This is of course another Newtonian legacy, and it is a most unfortunate one. Somewhat ironically though Newton believed that the same rules governed and applied to both. In spite of that, however, the reality is that he took little time to examine the subjective observations with the same care as he did with the objective ones. One significant example of this fact is the manner in which he treated the observation that in subjective experiments the spectrum is inversely displayed--VBGYOR, instead of ROYGBV (from the apex of the prism to the base). Apart from mentioning that fact, in passing, he did nothing at all about it. And that failure, again, has reverberated to the present day. To such an extent that today's conventional physicist's 'explanation' for that observation is such a cacophonous verbiage of nonsense that it makes me want to howl to the moon every time I hear it. And believe me, I have heard it so many times over the years...

Newton's failure to treat the so-called subjective experiments with the same degree of care as he treated the objective ones is by and large the main cause for the staggering level of prismatic ignorance that is prevalent today. From the hundreds (perhaps thousands) of examples that I could give you about that fact, in the end I have chosen only one. It is a personal example and it happened a few months back at the Physics StackExchange forum. It began when I posted the question below.

My question attracted two answers.

I don't want to spend any time at all discussing the 'answers' given. That wasn't my intention in the first place for showing you this particular example. The main reason for that decision was to highlight what should be the most valuable insight one should extract from this little piece of factual reality. The overarching lesson of this story is to see that the vast majority of us invariably fail to see that the simplest truths are the hardest to discover. The question I had posted to that forum should have been comprehensively answered in less than 100 words by pretty much anyone who had even a superficial knowledge of Goethe's and Newton's work. So much so, I say, that any ordinary thinker (with even a superficial knowledge of the works I mentioned) should have instantly realised that when it comes to providing a consistent explanation for the observation in question Goethe's wins hands down, beyond the shadow of a doubt. For those unable to see the truth of this matter even now the only thing I have to say is this: I'm sorry that it is I who had to inform you that you're definitely not a thinker. That doesn't mean that you couldn't be a physicist. Quite the contrary, in fact, for to the best of everybody's knowledge, there hasn't been thus far even a single physicist--of the conventional kind, let us specify--who's managed to see that small piece of the bloody truth in the last 350 years. So, I have said, once and for all, but if there's anyone who thinks that he knows better don't cower in the safety of shadows. Come forward, out here, in the open, under the lights and scrutiny of all--or otherwise keep your mouth firmly shut. Forever.