“……….I seem to recall though that modern molecular biology has yielded protein sequences for rod and cone pigments”

Plaintively.…doesn’t anyone yet understand the simple  geometric light interaction principles underlying this explanation - that finally makes sense of Osterberg’s historic retinal morphology measurements ?  Cannot anyone get past the preconceived and incorrect concept that “retinal pigments contained within receptors” determine light interaction on the retinal surface - and the subsequent absurd , historically propounded, notion that “cones detect color and rods detect black and white”!

But, to the point of this text, any modern genetic finding such as this (“modern molecular biology has yielded protein sequences”) really represents an incomplete statement.  The  important question to ask in this case is:  sequences to produce a protein structure that functions how? If one assumes that it is “to construct a pigment molecule” then one is irrevocably stuck in the old incorrect model of retinal light interaction. I continually find the awe that contemporary science holds for genetic knowledge assuming that this capability in itself explains “everything”  when in fact  this knowledge is only an intermediate step towards explaining anything.

In my explanation, the sequences to which the correspondent refers lead to construction of the spatial “framework” of the rhodopsin complex that “holds” the central retinal molecule (that is ubiquitous to every receptor)! This genetically determined spatial  framework differs for the two sizes (cone and rod) of receptors.

The role of the protein sequences in this new explanation is to provide a geometric spatial function.

Please read the work!

GCH
Tucson, Az
7.06.09

___________________________________________________________

The condition of epilepsy is generally  described  and studied from the viewpoint of association with the electrical activity of the brain. There is, however, a literature and experience connecting  this condition , or perhaps more properly the initiation thereof,  to visual effects. I  recently became aware of possible effects on human behavior associated with proximity to the new energy saving CFL (”Compact Fluorescent Light”) lighting devices.

I have previously written (July 2005) on the subject of pupillary constriction.The following is an updated version of that text.

ON PUPILLARY CONSTRICTION

Although it doesn’t seem to be widely recognized, a recent paper Drew et al (Pupillary Response to Chromatic Flicker, Exp. Brain Res.136, pp 256-262, 2001 ) finds that it is the wavelength (hue or color)   and not the intensity (luminence) of light that is the determining factor in constriction of the pupil of the eye. In my explanation for  retinal light interaction the integrated response of the rods of the peripheral retina acting as a “wide angle light meter” (which we assert is sensitive solely to short wavelength radiation) that controls this function.

The question that follows is what are the most effective wavelengths? Drew et al after finding that hue (color) modulated flicker has a much greater effect on constriction than a luminance modulated signal found that: “Red-blue color-paired flicker consistently produced the strongest (pupillary) constrictions. These responses occurred even when the flicker was of a lower luminance, both physically and perceptually, than a preceding non-flickering color, indicating that chromatic rather than luminance-sensitive mechanisms are involved in this response.”(emphasis mine)

Additionally, Drew et al point their results to the condition of “photosensitivity…in which afflicted individuals are abnormally sensitive to particular forms of photic stimulation which can result in seizure attacks…” Interestingly, they cite an event that occurred in Japan where 700 children were hospitalized after watching a television program where a particular red-blue flicker signal was displayed. (again emphasis is mine)

My explanation for light interaction with the retina may give some insight into the mechanism involved here. In this explanation  red wavelengths  are solely refracted to the all-cone fovea. Signals arising from these interactions would be very fast due to their purely electronic nature. (I have more recently proposed that at least the first light interaction event of the interaction process would be in the femtosecond or 10-15 sec time domain).   The time constant of the periphral blue-sensitive “light meter” array of rods, on the other hand, would have a different (perhaps vastly different) time constant  associated with its function of controlling the pupil of the eye. The mechanical nature of this process predicts a slow speed of response - much slower than the electronic long wavelength signal.

From the above one can almost envision a chaotic situation that arises where the slower process of pupillary constriction is attempting to “keep up” with  fast  long wavelength signal. I would think that this would disrupt  the otherwise coherent interplay of these two signals presented to the brain. Might this explain the effects described by Drew?

There are some  testable predictions that can be made from these conclusions. The first might be that the farther the flickering wavelengths are apart the greater the effect on the brain and behavior… with red and blue representing the ends of the visible spectrum…the more pronounced the effect. There is also consideration of the width of the spectral peaks  that are involved in the flicker. I must remind that there are absolutes here that follow from my explanation…the precise and constant separation distance of the foveal cones represents the absolute long wavelength limit of visual response. The corresponding separation of rods (center-to-center distance) defines the absolute short wavelength limit of this response. These a precise geometric conclusions.

It may then be that an ultimate red/blue, i.e., corresponding to the ends of the visible spectrum, separation of wavelengths leads to the ultimate condition of an epileptic seizure  (testable?).  Might lesser separations lead to lesser, perhaps disorienting, effects? And, we come to the subject of CFL’s.

A simple Google search  of “epilepsy vision”  finds many citations with the following non-scientific but informative link Energy Saving Lamps an example. One immediately sees that light emission from the phosphors of CFL’s consists of a series of narrow peaks. One gains the impression that these peaks seem generally, in commercial lighting, to be three in number at  wavelengths of approximately 425, 550 and 600 nanometers. I might guess that this is the result adding additional long wavelength emitting phosphors to “soften” (i.e. turn “reddish”) the bluish cast of a basic phosphor.(that may be ZnS?).  The light output of  traditional fluorescent lamps is also composed of peaks at approximately the same wavelengths. For comparison, the corresponding light output from a tungsten lamp is a continuum of wavelengths stretching from 400 to 700 nanometers. A “white light” LED lamp has a single peak at 460 nanometers.

I might speculate that the spectral output of CFL’s (and fluorescent lighting) has at least the potential for producing effects such as seen by Drew.

There is much more to be investigated here. The time domain of the flicker will surely be important.

GCH

6.03.08

The following text is quoted from Wikipedia on this subject:

“Scotopic vision is the monochromatic vision of the eye in dim light. Since cone cells are nonfunctional in low light, scotopic vision is produced exclusively through rod cells. Vision in normal light with functioning rod cells is photopic vision”.

One must reason from this that cone receptors somehow “shutdown”  in low light.  There is absolutely no experimental evidence for such a statement!  Further,  one is left with the model that the scotopic and photopic  systems of vision are two separate systems.

Implicit in these thoughts is the oft repeated statement that it is the “cone receptors that detect color and the rod receptors black and white”.

Again…absolutely in error !

There is really only one system.

One who has studied the main body of this work and my explanation for light interaction with the retina will understand that, outward from the all-cone fovea to approximately twenty degrees of retinal angle, the evolved admixture of cone and rod receptors is geometrically structured to detect only the three primary wavelengths. It is from this region that the sensation of “color” is derived. If   the level of light entering the eye falls below a certain threshold, the ability of the retina to process the intensity ratios needed to produce the sensation of color  fails ( Edwin Land - read the ext!) and vision becomes colorless (or “black and white”).  Beyond twenty degrees the primarily all-rod retina, in addition to precisely defining the short wavelength limit of visual response,  acts as a wide angle “light meter” controlling papillary constriction and the level of light entering the eye. It is this function of the rod-containing area that has led to the misunderstanding that rods individually detect low levels of light.

There is therefore really only one visual imaging system and it resides in the region surrounding the fovea to retinal angles of twenty degrees. The peripheral retina serves an entirely separate and totally different function

If, however, one persists in using the scotopic and photopic terms the proper definitions are:

Scotopic vision: “Under low light level conditions the rod receptors of the peripheral retina, linked together as has been experiments found, act as a single or integrated “wide angle light meter” with total area encompassed by rods being the cause of such observed sensitivity. It is further of note that, in addition to defining the exact short wavelength limit of visual response (~400 nm), this “light meter” controls pupillary constriction, that under low light level conditions, dilates the pupil of the eye admitting the maximum amount of light to the retina. Under these conditions light intensities of the three primary RGB wavelengths falling on the retina are insufficient to activate the “Land color mechanism”, i.e., there is insufficient intensity incident on either side of the geometrically determined mid-band (550 nm) reference point at 7-8 degrees of retinal eccentricity to allow a ratio to be obtained and the hues of color perceived. The historic misconception that “rods detect black and white” is explainable.

Photopic vision: “Under normal daylight levels of illumination the three primary RGB light intensities abstracted by the retina are sufficient to activate the “Land color mechanism” as defined above and the image including the hues of color is perceived. The peripheral rods, as above, constrict the pupil\controlling the intensity of light entering the eye to levels that will not damage the retina”.

Again, there is only one “system”!

GCH
4.17.09

From BBC News today: Eye ‘compensates for blind spot’ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7958838.stm

(I would note that the use of “blind spot” seems unfortunate perhaps confusing the term with the normal optic nerve-ending blind spot on the retina – that is always compensated for!)

Quotes from the article”

“Partially sighted and registered blind people can be taught to read and see faces again using the undamaged parts of their eyes, say experts”

“When only the central vision is lost, as with the leading cause of blindness, age-related macular degeneration, peripheral vision remains intact”

Please see my writings about macular degeneration at “On Macular Degeneration….Again….” and earlier at “On Blue Light and Age Related Macular Degeneration (AMD)”http://www.ghuth.com/2006/02/28/on-macular-degeneration%E2%80%A6again%E2%80%A6/.

My explanation for light interaction with the retina defines precisely from geometrical considerations where the three wavelengths of light that constitute visual response interact on the retinal surface. I believe that this exact retinal map of light interaction explains the effects noted in the article, and, if the vision field will ever get beyond the incorrect assumption that “three classes of cone receptors exist” this will lead to more intelligent ideas that will aid the vision of unfortunate AMD sufferers.

GCH

4.10.09

Ojai,CA

I preface this discussion by noting again my observation that the nanostructure of the retina of the eye (specifically at the plane of receptor outer segments) functions to detect the wave nature of light converting the absorbed energy at each of the millions  of light detection sites into quantized electron particles that are subsequently  processed to form  the visual image.

Each individual light detection site of the nanostructure consists of two regions: a.) a sub-micron dimensioned light wave-accepting space that is immediately adjacent to b.) a smaller quantum confined electron space or spaces. The combination forms a single generic light detection site with  the larger dimension defining wavelength.. It should be clear therefore that the initial light detection event  at these sites occurs in the near field or in about one period of the light waves oscillating field, i.e., approximately 10^-15 second (or a femtosecond).

The future of vision research will unfold as we increase our technological capability for measurement in, and understanding of, the femtosecond regime. Progress will come with our understanding of heretofore unseen quantum effects in the near field of the light wave. I have mentioned in recent comments one such result in the finding by Engel et al of quantum coherence effects in the near field of the biological photosynthetic apparatus.

In physics terms this is an extraordinary statement implying that a solution to the historic conundrum of the wave/particle duality is seen in the process of vision showing that the idea that a “photon interacts”, should be replaced by the statement that a “quantized interaction” has occurred.

In the vision process, and following this insight, I have shown that nature employs a simple geometric principle to delineate and detect only three wavelengths out of the vast sea of electromagnetic wave energy.  The wavelength or frequency of light is therefore geometrically selected. This defines a precise mapping of where  these three (”primary”) wavelengths interact on the retinal surface which  in turn leads to a new understanding that the vision process functions in the Fourier domain…and on and on to further insights… as I have written about.

Richard Feynman wrote that that the most fundamental interaction in nature occurs “between the photon and the electron”. More generally, F. meant the interaction occurring between light and electrons that constitute the absorbing mass (the reader will surmise that I believe F. was mistaken in his belief that quantized photons exist as I will develop in forthcoming text).

It would seem then, in summary, that we humans, looking out at what we perceive to be reality, are traversing the vast sea of electromagnetic wave radiation and abstracting in the vision process three specific geometrically defined (visible) wavelengths to form our image of , at least visual , reality!

I will shortly add discussion of the voluminous evidence for believing that the concept for the existence of photons represents an historic misunderstanding In the meantime one might read Nobelist Willis Lamb’s paper “Anti-photon” (Appl. Phys. B 60, 77-84, (1995).

From the Abstract of that paper:

“It should be apparent from the title of this paper that the author does not like the use of the word “photon”, which dates from 1926. In his view, there is no such thing as a photon. Only a comedy of errors and historical accidents led to its popularity among physicists and optical scientists…..”

And another qote From Dr. Stanley Alterman’s blog  Stanley’s World ( “Optical Waves Wash Photons Aside”).

“Despite his success, Einstein and others at the time, viewed the quanta as “perplexing, pesky, mysterious, and sometimes a maddening quirk in the cosmos.” In particular, was the quanta of light a property of the light in a vacuum or the property of the process of light interacting with other materials? (emphasis mine/gch)

I believe that I am in reasonable company in these thoughts …and there is much more to come….

GCH

3.30.09

HBB/FL

I have previously published a diagram (“Diagram of the Basic Light Absorption Process in the Retina”, Jan. 10, 2008) showing what I believed to be the mechanism involved in the interaction of light with the outer segments of retinal receptors. In contrast with traditional views, I have proposed that light is absorbed as the electromagnetic wave in the spaces (exactly three are geometrically defined) between adjacent quantum confined electron sites contained within each receptor. I have described this interaction as occurring “between adjacent receptors” that is contrasted with the historically held view (in every textbook on vision!) that “photons interact with pigments contained within receptors”. But I really must be more precise refining both the space and time aspects of that statement.

The following is the initial diagram:

In summary, the diagram attempts to portray light interaction in three distinct regions:

I Initially, light is absorbed in the spaces between adjacent receptor outer segments (to the left in the diagram) fundamentally interacting as the electromagnetic wave of classical physics.

II A transition region where the absorbed energy is thermalized (i.e., “slowed in time”) via phononic mass transport along the membrane of the thylakoid disks that form the body of the receptor segments. Intercalation of cholesterol into this lipid membrane indicates that a lossless soltonic mechanism may actually be operative.

III With the absorbed energy finally arriving at the central array of rhodopsin complexes that form the quantum confined electron (QCE) sites within the receptor and effecting the signal-producing isomerization of the retinal molecule. This final process generates the quantized electron particle that is used in synthesis of the visual image.

The diagram shows only half of the process, i.e., interaction with only one receptor. Two adjacent receptors will actually be involved in the detection process forming a “near field optical antenna” structure between them.

It is apparent, therefore, that the array of retinal outer segments is a biologically evolved nanostructure that functions at each light interaction center to translate light as an electromagnetic wave into quantum-confined electron particles.

(I will leave for the time being discussion of the fundamental implications of this finding to physics).

Many new considerations follow from the above.

The function of the opsin moiety of the rhodopsin complex is seen to be actually spatial whose function is to spatially define and orient these complexes to conform to a specific configuration –either what have traditionally been termed the “rod” or “cone” structures. Rhodopsin is seen to be not an “optical pigment accepting the interaction of photons” but is rather a space-filling entity that has a secondary role of orienting the retinal signal processing molecule so that it conforms to a proper dichroic orientation for accepting energy in consonance with the mechanism absorbing light.

This orientation is consistent with the long known, but never explained, measurements indicating that the rhodopsin complexes within receptors are dicroically oriented to accept light absorption orthogonal to the direction of incident light. This was always inconsistent with the idea that “photons interact” in the axial direction and led to such ridiculous notions as the “photon catch” hypothesis!

This orthogonal-to-the-direction-of-light–incidence energy transduction mechanism is repeated in each of the thousands of stacked thylakoid disks that form the axial length of each receptor outer segment. This allows one to conceptualize the formation of a differential electronic signal (a “giant dipole”) generated from individual interactions at each of the thousands of points along the length of each outer segment. I propose that such a differential signal encodes the direction of the incident light providing the second parameter of the Fourier equation showing, in turn, that the plane of light interaction with the retina is actually the Fourier plane of the optics of the eye. The fundamental mechanism of vision thus involves detection and solution of a two dimensional Fourier transform!

To summarize – all of the above occurs spatially within the near field of the wavelength of visible light. The lateral dimension of the individual light detection centers is consistent with this being less than one micron (10^-6 m) with the central QCE centers occupying even less space – of nanometer

(10^-9 m) dimension. Such structures are electronically consistent with operation in the very fast – femtosecond (10^-15 sec) - time domain. This, in turn, agrees with reported, and again not explained, measurements showing that the signal-producing isomerization of the retinal molecule occurs in this time frame.

Events at the light interacting retinal outer segments therefore involve the wave/ particle duality of quantum physics. The retina functions to interact in very fast femtosecond time and to slow the “interaction signal” to human nervous system compatible proportions.

The vision process was never the “millisecond camera” that has been for so long assumed and taught.

Further progress in understanding the vision process will involve quantum processes such as the femtosecond spectroscopy discovery of a “quantum coherence” effect in the photosynthetic apparatus.

ADDITIONALLY:

Now one must consider (and ultimately explain) that each individual thylakoid disk, the stacking of which forms the body of each receptor segment, contains not one but thousands of rhodopsin monomers intercalated into the membrane disk-forming structure. See, for example, Fotiadis et al, (NATURE | VOL 421 | 9 JANUARY 2003) with a quote from their paper:

“In vertebrate retinal photoreceptors, the rod outer-segment disc membranes contain densely packed rhodopsin molecules…….” (Fotiadis et al, Nature, Vol.421 | 9 January 2003). Further from the same reference: “it is….revealed rows of rhodopsin pairs densely packed in paracrystalline arrays. Packing densities were 30,000–55,000 rhodopsin monomers per mm2, with an average density of 48,300 to 58,300 monomers per mm2.

This work uses infrared-laser atomic-force (AFM) microscopy to reveal that the arrangement of rhodopsin complexes within the membrane of the disks form spatially ordered paracrystalline arrays of dimers. It is instructive to view their figures (specifically their Fig. 2) illustrating the exquisite spatial order of these molecules.

Following the logic of this work this ordered structure would seem to support the idea of an additional directional function, i.e., a second energy- accepting directionality beyond the dichroic orientation of single retinal molecules discussed above. This additional directionality would lie in the plane of the membrane and be oriented toward adjacent receptors. One then visualizes three dimensional – and directional – energy acceptance!

GCH

3.27.09

Ojai,CA

A number of recent papers that are truly provocative … and that, if one carries the model of this vision work to its conclusion, bear directly upon it. I have previously noted the work of the Fleming group at UC/Berkeley (“Evidence for wavelike energy transfer through quantum coherence in photosynthetic systems”) finds, using femtosecond spectroscopy, a quantum coherent “beating” in the near field of light interaction with a biological photosynthetic apparatus. My explanation for light interaction in the vision process posits such a near field interaction and the mechanism for this to occur (and, in support of my thesis , I will note again that the vision field is aware from femtosecond spectroscopic measurements that isomerization of the retinal molecule in retinal receptors, i.e., the “signal producing” event occurs in this same very fast time frame).

The defining point of the process of vision occurs in light interaction with the outer segments of retinal receptors and involves classical wave-to- quantized electron particle transition at each receptor in the near field of the wavelength of light.

(A provocative proposal that occurs to me - the quantum beating observed in light interaction with the biological photosynthetic structure is regular (i.e., beats are of the same intensity). This seems to me as it should be in a regularly defined (i.e., granal and stromal) evolved biological structure. Might the structure of this beating be associated with the shape of a Wien/Planck black body cavity?)

A second new paper “Is Time an Illusion?” is reported in New Scientist. This is truly magnificent stuff! I have previously written on the relationship of time to the vision process noting that quantum thought enters as one proceeds to the domain of shorter times.

Excerpts from the piece (with my emphasis):

“Their idea, called the thermal time hypothesis, suggests that time emerges as a statistical effect, in the same way that temperature emerges from averaging the behaviour of large groups of molecules”

“Imagine gas in a box. In principle we could keep track of the position and momentum of each molecule at every instant and have total knowledge of the microscopic state of our surroundings. In this scenario, no such thing as temperature exists; instead we have an ever-changing arrangement of molecules. Keeping track of all that information is not feasible in practice, but we can average the microscopic behaviour to derive a macroscopic description. We condense all the information about the momenta of the molecules into a single measure, an average that we call temperature.

According to Connes and Rovelli, the same applies to the universe at large. There are many more constituents to keep track of: not only do we have particles of matter to deal with, we also have space itself and therefore gravity. When we average over this vast microscopic arrangement, the macroscopic feature that emerges is not temperature, but time. “It is not reality that has a time flow, it is our very approximate knowledge of reality that has a time flow,” says Rovelli. “Time is the effect of our ignorance.”

“That Rovelli’s approach yields the correct probabilities in quantum mechanics seems to justify his intuition that the dynamics of the universe can be described as a network of correlations, rather than as an evolution in time. “Rovelli’s work makes the timeless view more believable and more in line with standard physics,” says Dean Rickles, a philosopher of physics at the University of Sydney in Australia.”

I must note that this thesis essentially corresponds to the ideas of Ernst Mach that reality is composed of (parallel) “sensations” rather than the passage of time. One might see, for example, Mach’s work “THE ANALYSIS OF SENSATIONS and the Relation of the Phsyical to the Psychical”, published initially in 1886 and revised in 1905

Gerald Huth,

Ojai, CA

I have come upon a quote attributed to William James the American psychologist and philosopher on the subject of making a new discovery: “First … attacked as absurd; then it is admitted to be true, but obviously insignificant; finally it is seen to be so important that its adversaries claim that they themselves discovered it”.

This quote is eerily reminiscent of an experience of mine.  Long ago, while with the Semiconductor Products Department of the General Electric Company, I came upon what I thought was a truly significant discovery, to wit, the ability to control the surface of PN junctions so that the true bulk reverse breakdown characteristic of the junction could be realized. PN junctions of the time would show reverse breakdown of ~300 volts while possessing internal breakdown values of ~2,000 volts.  Moreover the limited 300 volt value represented only a fraction of the “yield” of a production line.  On an afternoon, and following a truly simple insight ^(1), I found that I could fabricate junctions that displayed reverse breakdown at the theoretical 2,000 volt value every time. This represented a fundamental technological advance and had been a goal of the device development effort of the Department (and the reason for my job!). From that period forward events ensued exactly as William James foretold.

My first inclination was to convey my excitement to my supervisor by demonstrating the advanced characteristic that I had found.  I remember well his comment: “There isn’t anything new in this – we have seen this occasionally before.”   I persisted for weeks in my effort, reminding him of what I had seen – but with no response.  At this point I must recount how the development came to be recognized.  One of the engineers in charge of a production line (”medium current rectifiers”) was a good friend of mine. Following my friendly haranguing, he finally agreed to place his technicians at my disposal to etch devices following my prescription.  Again, I remember well the results – their complete wonder at never having seen anything like this before.  They actually had to send out to another GE facility for a high voltage power supply with which to test the devices! So at this point the ability to fabricate every device to 2,000 volt theoretical breakdown had been demonstrated.

And then began the second phase which James so presciently saw.  The applications group of the Department charged with applying any new developments retorted in essence as follows: “so you can achieve high voltage breakdown – but who needs it!” (the technology of electrical power conversion would indeed benefit as history has shown from the ability to block high voltages ⁽²⁾).

And then came the final nail in the coffin - the Department’s marketing group concluded that the innovation could not be introduced as it would adversely affect sales of current (inferior!) products.

At this point I gave up and transferred to the Space Sciences Laboratory of the company to apply the effect to development of solid state radiation detectors - the solid state analogue of the vacuum tube photomultplier (subsequently becoming known as “electron avalanche detectors”).

I will comment on James’ final phase only to say that my name appears on the initial U.S. patent only because of a diligence of the GE patent attorney who noted that the witnessed entry in my patent notebook preceded all others.

GCH

Ojai, CA

__________________________________________________________

⁽¹⁾ The first of a series of patents:  U.S. Patent No. 3,491,272 - “Semiconductor Device with Increased Voltage Breakdown Characteristics”, Jan 20, 1970, (Patents also applied for in France and the Soviet Union).

⁽²⁾ The development went on to making feasible the fabrication of silicon power conversion devices with breakdown in excess of 7,000 volts and this development in a greater sense made possible the high voltage transmission of electrical power.

We all see red as red because the physical diameter of the large (cone) receptors  on our retinas are the same size.

As explained in this work,  the diameter of our large receptors (which have traditionally been termed cones)  determine the long light wavelength limit of our vision.  This diameter sets the center-to-center distance between receptors and, in antenna terms, “tunes” the light detection center  to this primary wavelength while at the same time setting the long light wavelength limit of visual response. When  a simple geometric principle  is applied (see my Rosetta Stone diagram)  the basis for the three primary light wavelengths of vision becomes  obvious.

Note that these primaries are simply narrow light wavelengths and are not yet the hues of color.

The term color should be reserved for the many hues that are synthesized by the eye from the three primary wavelengths, using the scheme brilliantly discerned without any of this knowledge, by Edwin Land.

In this geometric scheme the exact center of the visual band (i.e., 550 nanometers or green) is geometrically determined on the retina.  This exact center is used as a central wavelength reference point from which all of the hues of color are subsequently  synthesized  by the eye. This is the fulcrum described by Land which forms the basis for the well known but never explained visual characteristic of color constancy.  Again, we owe this  initial insight to the work of Edwin Land.

Thus we humans all identify the same primary light wavelengths because we all have retinal receptors of approximately the same diameters. Our discernment of color is the result of a simple geometric principle.

These diameters are approximately the dimensions of light wavelength or, in physics terms, in the near field of light. The retina is composed of ~150 million individual light detection sites of these dimensions that operate (switch?) in the realm of femtoseconds (10-15 sec).  This implies that the eye interrogates the domain of quantum physics and that these physics must be considered in ultimately  understanding  the process of vision.

I must here restate the basic rules defining retinal response to light:

1.  The absolute diameter of a receptor determines  the light wavelength absorbed or emitted at that site by setting the center-to-center dimension between adjacent receptors.

Species of fish  known to have vision in the near infrared should  according to these rules have larger receptors than the human variety. Insects having vision in the near ultraviolet short wavelength region should have receptors smaller than human. The literature shows this to be true as I have referenced in the body of this work.  The cones of trout species  have a diameter of seven microns – seven times larger than humans.

2.  The discernment of color by any species requires that an admixture of receptors of two diameters be present on the retina.  The ratio of these two diameters will define the visible band for that species.

The ratio of the two sizes of human receptors (again, traditionally termed cones and rods) is 1.8:1, with this ratio corresponding  to the 700-400 nanometer bandwidth of human visual response.

3.  The  diameter of the  larger receptor will determine, within the bounds of antenna theory, the precise limit of  visual response to longer light wavelengths (~ 700 nm in humans). Analogously, the  diameter of the smaller receptor will determine the precise short wavelength limit of  visual response.

______________________________________________________

The simplicity of the above explanation of the vision process leads me to comment on a bit of text recently brought to my attention.  I was directed to a Wiki site that addresses the subject of color vision. In itself this site is of little importance but it does represent the anything-original-or -new -must-be-bad thought process characteristic in the vision science (and other areas of science) community.

Some text abstracted from this link (emphasis in all cases is mine):

“Is there any place in this article for an alternative theory, ie Gerald Huth’s website?

No. That site doesn’t make any sense.  22:03, 21 Mar 2005

I’ve read this site in some detail. At this time the idea is far too experimental to be considered informational. I am also of the opinion that this theory is easily refuted by a simple examination of the optical and mechanical properties of the eye, which are trivially measured and AFAIK do not agree with the degree of chromatic abberation required for this theory to work. Furthermore, the mathematics of waveguide effects around cone cells have been analyzed by others corrections to photopigment optical density have been estimated to account for the effect, and the author’s often-cited “mysterious” effects of induced-color perception experiments by Edwin Land are easily explained by modern color appearance models. Its fun to think that 300 years of vision science is completely wrong, but it does not appear to be the case. :)  08:12, 20 March 2007

My comments on specific points from the text:

“ the idea is far too experimental…” I would propose that any high school science student with a modicum of curiosity would understand this idea.  This is not a theory – it explains in the simplest of terms the historic results obtained in vision science.  I note, for example, the experimental results in the field of vision of Nobelist George Wald.

“….refuted by a simple examination of the optical and mechanical properties of the eye…” A simple simulation (using Light Tools optical simulation software, for example) using dimensions, index of refraction values for the various structures of the eye show immediately that light wavelengths are directed to the retinal eccentricities geometrically calculated in this work. I  had occasion to visit an investigator who was doing a much more precise simulation (for LASIC application as I remember) where, in a dramatic moment where he touched a key on his computer and brought up on the screen his simulation, the 550 nm mid band (green) wavelength was refracted precisely to eight degrees of retina eccentricity exactly as I had predicted.  I even recall his comment after listening to my explanation that “he would have to unlearn everything he had ever learned about vision if he were to believe me”..

“….waveguide effects around cone cells have been analyzed by others..” (underlining is mine). I do not believe that the writer meant exactly “around” – but if he did he would have been on the right track.  I have noted in the body of this work (referenced) the extensive efforts by Snyder, Enoch and others who theoretically analyzed individual receptors as light conducting (“iber optic) waveguides.   Parenthetically, I have noted that such treatment assumes the wave character of light – not photons interacting with pigments – oops!, the wave/particle dilemma again!

This author of the above comment ought to become aware of new results in contemporary physics.  A truly significant result by Boston University investigators (referenced in the body of the work) demonstrates that when the diameter of a fiber optic light guide is reduced to sub-optical wavelength dimensions (less than one micron – the dimension of retinal receptors) light is transmitted around and not through the guide.  The smaller the diameter the more light is shifted outside of the body of the fiber.  This is in exact accord with my explanation.

“….mysterious effects of induced-color perception experiments by Edwin Land…” Words almost fail me here as I have written so much on this subject.  If anything, the experiments and thoughts of Edwin Land are the most original, lucid and transparent thoughts that anyone will find in the field of science.  I like to compare Land’s writings to those of a great physicist, David Bohm, who thought and wrote with the same clarity.

I will recount again – some time ago an individual from a prestigious vision research group wrote to me concerning my interest in Land’s work.  His comment: (in his terms, speaking for the vision community) “we put Land’s work to bed years ago” referring me to a paper that would “clear things up for me”.  This is of such importance that I will here include that reference.  The title fascinated me and I dutifully obtained the reference (published in a journal that seemed obscure to me in relation to vision science). This paper can only be characterized as the screed of a very angry man filled with ad hominem attacks on Land (as, for example, characterizing him as an “inventor” - read “not a scientist”).  I would certainly never consider this an objective technical paper or any refutation of Land’s work!

The reference: “LAND! LAND!, by Gordon L. Walls, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 57, No.1, 1960.

“…..300 years of vision science is completely wrong…” No, not completely wrong.  The trichromicity of the vision process was correct.  Beyond that, I have always felt since reaching this understanding that subsequent effort in vision assumed the wrong model and has attempted for many long years to stuff all experimental data obtained into that wrong model where it did not fit. Again, George Wald’s results are a major case in point.

In summary, a great deal of this is such utter foolishness! I have never wanted to believe Max Planck’s famous quote that “science advances funeral by funeral” but this may in fact be the case. Planck made this statement probably a hundred years ago – apparently things never change!

GCH

12.02.08

___________________________-

The initial text here uses  two figures excerpted from the original paper (available on webpage) and forms the fundamental basis for the explanation. All follows from this argument.

The first figure attributed to Osterberg recounting the distribution of cones and rods on the retinal surface is referenced in countless textbooks on vision.  There can be no doubt that these measurements have been accepted by vision science. One notes (although it is not clear in the drawing)  that most of the cone receptors, in fact greater than 99%, are contained in only one degree of retinal angle.  This small region is  termed the fovea.  As one proceeds to retinal angles beyond one degree it is seen that rod receptors are introduced  into the dense (hexagonally packed) array of cones in a statistically distributed manner. The accepted model states that it is the array of cone receptors functions to “detect color”.  It has been historically assumed that, in agreement with the known trichromicity of vision, there must be three “classes” of color sensitive cones - commonly termed as red, green and blue sensitive. Now, keep in mind that >99% of all of the cones reside in the small central foveal region - within the narrow one degree retinal angle.  Vision science goes on from here to assume from that the retina represents the intensity-only sensitive image plane of the optics of the eye. This is the plane where film is located in a camera. To imagine how these cones might form an image they must display some spatial order as in the regular array of RGB triads or stripes on a television screen  or in the imaging chips used in digital cameras. But….none of this appears on the retina! The proposed RGB sensitive cones are haphazardly distributed with no discernible order…and, moreover, the blue or “B” sensitive cones have a difficult time making an appearance at all !

I believe that this describes the paradigm that has evolved in vision science . Even on the face of it, is in my view totally irrational.

It is the accepted Osterberg data that forms the fundamental basis for my explanation.

A logical interpretation of  Osterberg’s  measurement  in this work proposes that  it  is the distribution of receptor appositions that defines sites where light  wavelengths interact on the retinal surface. It is not “photons interacting with pigment molecules within receptors” but rather light interacting as  the wave of clasical physics interacting in antenna fashon between adjacent receptors. As presented in the original paper, a simple counting (i.e., cone-cone, cone-rod, rod-rod) of these appositions as a function of retinal angle reveals a diffraction the light sensitive surface that underlies the trichromicity of vision. This, in turn, reveals that the retina is actually a diffractive  surface forming the  Fourier (or focal) plane of the optics of the eye and not the intensity-only or “camera film” surface that has for so long been presumed.

This is the fundamental essence of all that  follows!

The retina of the eye, and specifically the plane of retinal outer segments, is seen to be composed of an array of more than 130 million logically spaced light detection elements (or pixels)  that function to translate incident electromagnetic wave radiation into quantized electron particles.  These elements function in the near-field ( i.e., of dimensions smaller than light wavelength) and in times as short as femtoseconds ( 10-15 sec) . The quantized electrons encode the electrical information necessary to form the visual image. The historically defined cone and rod receptors are seen to function as generic structural elements that function  to provide the required spacing between adjacent receptors. The ratio of the diameters of these two sizes of receptors actually corresponds to the visual band, i.e., the ratio of  -1.8:1 corresponding to the 700-400 nanometer visible band. We must stop thinking of  receptors as cones and rods with different functions and realize that they represent simply two  sizes of  generic light conversion elements.

The lateral spacing of this nanowire array is determined by a simple geometric rule that selects  three wavelengths from the broader electromagnetic spectrum for detection in the vision process. These are the same three wavelengths that have historically  been termed primary that underlie the correctly understood trichromicity of vision

This geometric  rule derived from the retina states that: an admixture of circles of two diameters defines three center-to-center wavelength-determining dimensions with the ratio of these two diameters defining the detected bandwidth.

Further, these three wavelengths are pre-selected  by the light refractive chromatic aberrration of the structure of the evolved eye and focused onto the retina. This refraction has been historically and improperly termed an aberration but it is not an aberration at all but is fundamental to the visual image formation process.

In the largest sense then it then becomes clear that the true nature of the vision process is an objectification of the basic laws of the refraction of light and that the biological morphology of the retina evolved from simple and well understood molecular (chemical/polar lipid) self-organization mechanisms.  Paraphrasing LaPlace  “There is no need for a creationism hypothesis”.

The three wavelengths detected by the retina  have  historically been correctly defined as primary but  improperly termed as colors. Early vision science discerned the  trichromicity of vision  but from that point picked the wrong model to explain it.

Thus, at the basis of evolved biological vision is a nanostructure that geometrically selects three wavelengths from the broader electromagnetic spectrum and translates these into quantized electronic information that is used to form the visual image.

The nanostructure of the retina  evolved to detect light as an electromagnetic wave with the quantum transition to electron particle occurring at the point of retinal outer segments. The result instead of imagining that  “a photon interacts…” should properly be termed more generally that a  quantized interaction occurs.  The traditionally used construction that photons interact with pigment molecules within retinal receptors was always inaccurate.  And further, it is not and never was the case that “photons go from place to place”.

____________________________________________

For a discussion of the history of the concept of a photon read the paper “Anti-photon” by Nobelist Willis Lamb(Appl.Phys, B 77-84, 1995)

From  the abstract of that paper.

“It should be apparent from the title of this article that the author does not like the use of the word “photon”, which dates from 1926. In his view, there is no such thing as a photon. Only a comedy of errors and historical accidents led to its popularity among physicists and optical scientists……”

So there!!!

But Richard Feynman believed in photons !  …  from his “QED” p.15:

“I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have not gone to school. where you were probably told something about light behaving like waves. I’m telling the way it does behave - like particles.” (emphasis from F.)

This is like being told that there is no Santa Claus!

___________________________________________

Further, it must be emphasized that the individual light detection centers of the retinal array have dimensions smaller than light wavelength (i.e., they function in what is termed in physics the near field) and in a time scale of femtoseconds (10^-15 seconds). These centers therefore serve to effect a fundamental quantized spacetime translation from wave to particle.

Following the initial light absorption process, energy is transported laterally (i.e., parallel to the plane of the retinal surface) along the lipid membrane that forms the structure of the thylakoid disks within receptors. This energy transport occurs via a phononic  (or, as I propose, lossless solitonic ) mechanism that serves to thermalize the absorbed energy  slowing the process down to human nervous system proportions, i.e., near millisecond (10^-3 seconds). What has been termed the millisecond reaction time of the eye was always actually the reaction time of the human nervous system and not the eye itself.

Thus, the traditional morphological distinction between cones and rods can be finally understood. The function of the opsin protein moiety of the rhodopsin complex contained within receptors is actually structural with the purpose of it’s various perturbations being to effect the variable wavelength-defining spacing of the retinal array. Also finally explained is the, what has been termed,  anomalous, dichroism of the rhodopsin light-accepting complex. We can now make sense of the laterally directed orientation of this molecular complex.

The incorrect idea that “cones detect color” and “rods detect black and white” quoted in  every textbook on vision can now discarded. Use of the terms “primary” (as  noted above) and “color” are now understood. The retina geometrically detects three primary wavelengths with the term “color” reserved to describe the synthesis of hues from these wavelengths as elegantly described by Edwin Land - when is someone going to realize this! Not unimportant in this regard is the finding of this work that the exact midpoint (near 550 nanometer) of the visual band  that vision uses  for “Land color synthesis” is geometrically determined. In one stroke a large part of the image forming logic used by the eye in vision is explained.

In summary, it can be seen that the “first stage” of the vision process functions in the realm of quantum physics with all that this portends.

One then imagines that we humans “peer out”  into the broad electromagnetic spectrum that surrounds us through three narrow biologically evolved wavelength filters gathering information from that as yet only dimly understood regime of quantum physics - but we can now be sure that this is the case!.

The future of our understanding of the vision process seems  linked to the domain of quantum physics.

GCH

Ojai, CA