Stupid color question

Nava, is the colour of that bond so because it blocks all light and only lets through that colour. Or is it because it absorbs that colour, has a change and then spits out a photon of the right wavelength? (isn’t that last one phosphorescense? sp? or is it fluorescense?)

This is extremely fascinating. As an artist, I love colour, and I enjoy physics and chemistry too.

I just checked the Toronto Public Library for Nassau’s book, but they only have it in the reference stacks, so I can’t actually borrow it. Bother.

So a dye is molecules that spread through the thing being dyed, and a pigment is little coloured chunks that cover the thing being pigmented, and are held on by a binder (basically, transparent glue)?

Gee - thanks guys!
Kinda jammed up here at work today and tomorrow, but I definitely have some stuff to think in my free time.

This may be a book for all you dyed in the wool color fans:“The Perfect Red: Empire, Espionage and the Quest For the Color of Desire”

A very interesting book about the struggle to find a superior red dye and the effect of the discovery of Cochineal dye in Central America.

The color “of” a bond/substance is the color it would absorb and return. If the return does not involve chemical changes but does require a long time, then you get phosphorescence. If it doesn’t take a long time, you just see the object in that color. Note that when it comes to color absorption we’re talking all the time of “light as particle”; “light as wave” is useful for other stuff (like “why do some objects shine when struck by light but others don’t?”)

Hint: I learned which one was phosphorescence and which fluorescence by remembering that the tubes in the kitchen are fluorescent. Fluorescence is the emmision of light by electrically-excited gas at low pressure.