Hacker News Reader

Comment by datameta | Hacker News Reader

Fascinating article. But early on I had one question - why is a blue that is made by sunlight hitting hair nanostructures considered a "simulation" thereby differentiating it from color made through sunlight interaction with biochemistry of surfaces and subsurfaces?

To draw that out further, by the same logic we might consider properties of human-made metamaterials also simulations?

View on HN

I believe all of the colors of butterfly wings, and of all feathered animals are produced in the same way? I've always assumed that "simulation" has a local definition in the study of biological color reproduction, where light interactions with ultra fine structure at the atomic level is the default, or perhaps maybe on the time scale of evolution, the oldest means of reproducing color.

Contrast this witb a much coarser structural phenomenon manifesting at a level much closer to macroscopic is thus considered to be a "cheaper" simulation of that effect, in order to derive its same selective benefits but with less of a radical genetic shift required for the production of the right proteins etc.

The article says "manipulate the light that shines on them that simulates their signature blue look". https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/simulation meaning number 4, "Assuming an appearance which is feigned, or not true.".

I believe what they are trying to communicate (pretty poorly) is that the hairs are not blue as such, but in certain circumstances can manipulate light into the blue-violet spectrum.

Think of it this way: a prism isn't any of the rainbow colors, but can manipulate light into such.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com