But by saying:

"She specializes in the neurophysiology of vision and acquires, let us suppose, all the physical information there is to obtain about what goes on when we see ripe tomatoes, or the sky, and use terms like "red", "blue", and so on."

you basically say she does experience the "red-ness" but on a totally different level as you and I.
We have seen the color and been taught it is red, where she learned what red is before ever seeing it. then red is the mere word she has to link to it when te visual part actual sees the red.
She experience something that is the red in this case. But have not linked it to the actual visual of the color itself.
That is a new experience, because if we then tell her that red is blue or green, that is what it is then for her.

Because she experienced something that is true. then, when let out of the room she also experience something that is true. We have a word for that experience, she has not yet.
But she knows she sees red because that is what she has learned, she experience red the same way as she did in that black and white room where she only based it on wavelengths....
She now only has to endure the new impuls of the actual vision of the red....

So she sees what she learned and is experiencing it the same way with the visual exception which is new to her, but not newly learned except the word itself, that as to be linked to the experience.

does she learn something new? No, for she knows what is red and also has experienced red-ness, just not like us.
Does she know something she didn't know before? no, she knew it al the time. she is experiencing a new way of red: the visual experience

I even confuse myself at this point. You certainly got me thinking big time.....cheers for that.
I think I have contradicted myself a few times all ready....