• deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Specifically, purple is not a wavelength, unlike red(s) at ~700nm and blue(s) at ~400nm.

    Purple is what human eyes see when the blue and red cones are both stimulated by their respective colours of light.

    • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      3 months ago

      I like that some people are so confident in their incorrect understanding of something that they’ll downvote the correct answer.

      What you said is correct.

      • deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        Urgh, I go to sleep, wake up, read soooooo much awful wrongness.

        Thanks for the vote of confidence fact.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      3 months ago

      Nope. Purple is a wavelength that partially triggers both the red and blue cones.

      The visual spectrum is continuous, not just three wavelengths corresponding to the three cones.

      The blue cones and the red cones are stimulated by purple light. It’s a mix of blue and red signals from the retina, but the light is a single wavelength that is actually purple.

        • CerealKiller01@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Ohhh, I think I get it.

          Purple is what you get when you force the visible light spectrum into a wheel, so there’ll be something that “connects” blue with red?

          If so, is the reason we perceive green as a different color than purple is because we have receptors for that specific wavelength, otherwise both colors would affect our red and blue color receptors similarly?