So when someone says “titanium oxide is white,” do you disagree and say “ah, but only when illuminated by a white light!”? Or when a reference says a kakapo is a green bird, do you say “that’s incorrect, kakapos are nocturnal so most of the time they don’t have any color at all”? I don’t think so. Color can be an intrinsic property of an object/substance/surface (specifically, the reflectivity curve) not just a transient phenomenon.
The OP asks Is color there if light isn’t? In the context of this question the answer is no, it is not.
If something explodes in a vacuum would you say there was a sound, you just can’t hear it? That’s a non-sequitor. Sound is a property of a transfer medium (usually air). Without it, sound does not exist. Light is the medium by which color is manifest. Without it, color doesn’t exist either.
My puzzler hurts…
White is not a color. A white object looks whatever color is shined on it… to us. That is because we need light to see color (or, in the case of white, all colors).
The object does not change whether or not light is there. What properties it has that cause us to see color in the presence of light do not change.
Well, I don’t know how many different ways I can explain this.
The phrase "we need light to see color" is just fundamentally flawed. Light does not allow us to see that an object’s molecules are orange or blue. The object changes the light’s frequency to orange or blue. It is a property of the light! Without light being reflected there is absolutely no concept whatsoever of orange or blue. None. Zero. Zip.
Think of a prism. A prism appears colorless to us. And yet it will reflect (actually refract) light into all the colors. Is the prism rainbow colored? No, the light is.
Precisely! Color is created by light.
A perfect example to illustrate that color is dependent upon light. It is the light that determines the color of the ball. Yes, it is an orange ball under those conditions and yes, it looks orange because of odd (I would have used the term ‘different’) ** lighting**. The color of an object does changed based on the color of light by which it is illuminated. We assign “normal” colors to objects (‘an apple is red’) based on a color temperature of 5500 degrees kelvin - daylight - because that is how we ‘normally’ see objects illuminated. Most ‘everyday’ artificial light sources (incandescent, fluorescent) are close enough to daylight that we perceive colors illuminated by them as being ‘correct’. Changing the color temp. of the light source does not, of course, change the characteristics of an object which allow it to reflect certain wavelengths and absorb others, but it does change the wavelengths available to reflect or absorb, and therefore, the color of said object.
Put quite simply, we do not see objects. We see the light reflected by them. Therefore, no light…no color.
This is the sort of argument that fills up dictionaries. What’s going on here is that the word ‘color’ has two definitions that are generally experienced at the same time.
Color is indeed a property of light. When you perceive red, you are correct in calling it red, even if the color is a result of shining red light on a sheet of paper that would appear white under white light.
Color is also a property of objects, describing how it influences light. Usually, the discriptor would be the color seen under white light. In the previous paragraph, it is proper to call the paper white, even when it is seen under red light. Sure, you aren’t getting white with your eyes, but you know that’s what you would see under different conditions.
Unfortunately, there is no common terminology to separate these two very closely related concepts.
I won’t argue with the conclusion about light, philosophically, but the analogy is flawed. An object can vibrate in a vacuum, therefore have a pitch. A string vibrating at 440 Hz in a vacuum has a pitch of A even if you can’t hear it.
Well, yes and no.
Yes, its still vibrating 440 times a second but that’s the object’s resonate frequency, not its ‘pitch’. The ‘pitch’ of A only exists in terms of sound (the same way a color only exists in terms of light).
I know it seems counter-intuitive but when you get right down to it, when push comes to shove etc. you not only need light to see color, you need light in order for there to be color.
I don’t mean to be picky, but that’s kinda what this thread is about.