Okay, but what is the reason why TV screens have three colours? And why not a primary combination other than red, blue and green?

"Tempted" by Squeeze never charted in the top 40 in any country where it was released.

me too

With the extension of the Aleutian Islands into the eastern hemisphere, Alaska is technically both the westernmost and easternmost state in the United States, as well as also being the northernmost.
Wikipedia/Alaska

Light color theory is different from pigment.

Red, green, and blue are the primary colors of light.

Each has an opposite color: cyan, magenta and yellow, respectively.

Yellow on the screen is produced by filtering out blue. And so on...

So those three colors are all the TV needs to make the spectrum.

All pigment colors mixed together make black. All light colors mixed together make white.

That's why TVs have a hard time making good black.

Source: I used to run one hour photo labs.

Orange is the opposite of blue. Yellow is opposite of purple.

Unless I'm not understanding you. But color wheel wise this is accurate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_theory

You are thinking pigment.

The question was why do TVs use RGB primary colors. Because they use light, not paint (RYB).

The impression I got is that there is no the primary colours of light.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_color

Cool. TVs use RGB because someone pulled those three colors out of his ass. Question answered.


or, OK, the way our eyes see light, not necessarily the light itself, because of receptors etc.

Lemme ask ya this: IS THERE SUCH A THING AS COLOR IF WE CAN'T SEE IT?

Well if there's nobody around to see a rainbow then it's just rain, right?

There is actually much deeper theory on RGB here:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6...gb-and-not-ryb

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RGB_color_model

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...0204126AA5WkXU

Plus, our eyes are equipped with RGB, so yes, Newton's Color Wheel isn't exactly right.

Newton spent many years of his life trying to turn lead into gold, plus his notation for Calculus didn't work out very well for English mathematicians. He got a lot right, but not everything.

Yeah maybe not. That's due to the language difference. Here, and in a lot of other places, the place of education you leave at 15/16 and join at 16/17 is called college, not high school. - It's crazy I know; other places and ****!


Kazakhstan is the worlds largest land locked country.

Not really pointless but I remember in architecture school my friend and classmate was blown away when our professor was explaining how sound energy converts into heat when it absorbs into a wall. He wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer but he just could not believe this.

Seems super obvious to anyone who learned basics about energy in high school.

I started college at 17. That was due to moving to another state as a child with a different cutoff age. Made me the youngest kid in class by a wide margin.

Did you go to the worst college ever?

You got me. It was the Harvard of beauty colleges.

I mean there are a lot of people with late August/early September birthdays so I would think plenty of kids would enter college still aged 17. I know some that did. And I don't see how you would be the youngest by a wide margin. Weren't there Asian kids there who graduated HS a year or two early? I think you are just guessing here. Or you went to a super small college.

I meant in HS. Thus I was 17 starting college, my classmates were 18.

We redshirted my son for kindergarten, so he will be among the oldest.

The hottest temperature thats ever been recorded is around 4,000,000,000,000C (four trillion degrees), about 250,000 times hotter than the centre of the sun.

That can't be true. WTF?

You sure that was a scientist and not some stoner answering how hot Adriana Lima is?

Depending on how you think of temperature, the state inside the average laser pointer is described by a temperature hotter than that.

I call BS. How is that possible without melting the laser?

I did a search and got exactly one hit (surprisingly, not this thread):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-f...-the-heat.html

Confirmed, I guess.

-- not the laser pointer factoid. Seriously, where is the link?

In statistical mechanics, temperature is defined not by how hot something feels, but (short answer) by the accessibility of the particles in question to the various energy states of the system. At 0 K, all particles are in the lowest energy level. This is impossible to fully achieve. As you heat the system up, higher energy levels become accessible to the system. Theoretically, at infinite temperature, all energy states would be equally probable.

But here's the thing. A semiconductor laser, such as that in a laser pointer, requires that more electrons are in the excited state than are in the ground state. This wouldn't be possible thermally, as infinite temperature means all states are equal. Any less than infinite, and you'd have more electrons in the ground state than in the excited state.

Unless you somehow went beyond infinite temperature! Well, just fitting the pattern of excited states I've been describing, it makes some sense that in order to have more particles in the excited state, you'd have to heat the system beyond infinity, but how could you possibly go beyond the infinite, and what does that mean? It turns out that in physics, we aren't actually concerned with temperature as much as we are with the quantity (-1/T), the negative inverse of the temperature, which physicists label beta. In that sense, it's easy to see why 0 K is unachievable. It's actually negative infinity! Then there's a transition at beta = -/+ 0 (+/- infinite temperature), which then proceeds through the negative temperatures up to -0 K (beta = +infinity), where all the particles would be in the most excited state possible.

Using electricity and the quirky quantum mechanical properties of the atoms in a semiconductor, we can actually drive the electrons in it to a population inversion, where the more excited state is more populated. We didn't need to apply beyond-infinite heat to do this, but the system will still obey the same laws of thermodynamics that things at ordinary temperatures obey provided you treat this system as having a negative temperature, which is, in effect, hotter than infinite temperature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_temperature

is there a reason for this? i have a late aug birthday and this 100% true.