On Mar 2, 8:34*am, Michael Coslo wrote:
Dave Platt wrote in part:

If Art is actually claiming that there's some sort of binding or
correspondence between the three families of leptons, and the "three
primary colors" as seen by humans, then the only such correspondence
I'm aware of is that both have the number "three" associated with
them. *There's no physical correspondence deeper than that, to the
best of my knowledge.

That may be so, but my point is that if a person says that green is a
primary color, it is not incorrect.

It isn't even a mmatter of wht other animals see, they can come up with
their own color theory.

I use the different systems every day, from when I worked in a darkroom
and used Cyan MAgenta yellow, to present day RGB for television and
computer work, and CMYK for print. They work.

As for Art's theory, people assign colors, or funny names as a tool of
understanding. The greenness or redness is only that, an electromagnetic
oscillation at a frequency our eyes see as green.

Side note: there is no magenta in the spectrum, so there are some who
are loathe to call it a primary color.

* * * * - Mike -

Were you aware that Maxwell gave a lecture to the Royal Society in
England on this very subject of primary colours? Presumably he was
persueing a connection with waves and particles or something like
that. As for electromagnetic oscillation at a given frequency, that is
beyond my pay grade, but I do have difficulty with discerning
differences between blue and green the same as the 10% of the
population!