Hi,

Ok, I am either going crazy or the book is messed up.  I am using Bruice's textbook (4th edition), and on pg. 326, it says that a red shift is a shift to a longer wavelength, while a blue shift is a shift to a shorter wavelength.  However, in the chart found further below on the same page (chart of the dependence of the color observed on the wavelengh of light absorbed), it lists red light as having a wavelength absorbance of 440-560 nm, while blue light has a wavelength absorbance of 540-650 nm, which is OPPOSITE of what it said earlier that red light having a longer wavelength.  

I am very confused.  Is there anyone that could help?  I would much appreciate it.  Thanks so much.

Ryan

Hi,

Ok, I am either going crazy or the book is messed up.  I am using Bruice's textbook (4th edition), and on pg. 326, it says that a red shift is a shift to a longer wavelength, while a blue shift is a shift to a shorter wavelength.  However, in the chart found further below on the same page (chart of the dependence of the color observed on the wavelengh of light absorbed), it lists red light as having a wavelength absorbance of 440-560 nm, while blue light has a wavelength absorbance of 540-650 nm, which is OPPOSITE of what it said earlier that red light having a longer wavelength.  

I am very confused.  Is there anyone that could help?  I would much appreciate it.  Thanks so much.

Ryan

read up on hypsochromic and bathochromic shifts, don't take "red" and "blue" literally.

Hmm, I understand now that the chart was not referring to the wavelength of red light, but I am not sure what the chart title means.  Does it mean that the wavelength indicated is the wavelength of light that is ABSORBED in order to REFLECT back that certain color (in this case, red)?