>>93787089Actually you have an interesting point here, because there is a commonality
Green is a "real" colour, it exists on the electromagnetic spectrum at a wavelength of 500-550nm.
>>93787212This is actually wrong, pink light is a result of red light and blue light mixing, and it is actually different from green. It is a perceptual colour - you cannot find a place on the electromagnetic spectrum that is pink. Because your eye can detect both red and blue light, it tells your brain it's pink.
Now brown, likewise, is not a "real" colour - it's a perceptual colour and doesn't exist on the spectrum. So why can't we just do the same thing as pink? Because unlike pink light, brown requires low-intensity red or orange light coupled with much brighter colours like white or yellow in higher intensity around it as a background. Red and blue can be roughly equivalent, but brown's perceptual nature is practically defined by it being made to look inferior. Basically, it lost the game before it even started.
A "brown" light would only work in a setting where it is dwarfed by the sheer amount of ambient light around it.
