Why, oh Why,……?

First, I consider this work an ‘explanation’ rather than an ‘hypothesis’ or ‘theory’ that requires proof. A simple and rational reason is presented for the unique assymetrical arrangement of cones and rods that form the retinal surface..and this leads to a totally new understanding of the vision process. Why hasn’t anyone in the last hundred years observed that it is the geometric center-to-center distance between cone and rod retinal receptors (that is determined by receptor diameter) that defines where the wavelengths of light interact on the retinal surface? What has been termed an ‘aberration’ – lateral chromatic aberration – is not an aberration at all but is the primary wavelength-separating factor operating in the eye. Seen in this light, the strange, assymmetric organization of cones and rods that has evolved is immediately explained. The precise short and long wavelength endpoints, and an exact geometrically-defined midpoint, of the visible band are defined and their location actually delineated on the retinal surface. With this insight it becomes obvious that the retina is a circularly diffractomeric light interactive surface and that vision is a Fourier-transforming process. The eye is not a ‘camera’ nor is the retina the analogue of a section of photographic film!

I have proposed that if the Roorda group would apply the same retinal imaging methodology (1) that they used at one degree of retina angle to measurements of retinal response at seven degrees they would find that it was composed of all green-sensitive centers (that they would term the response of ‘cones’). In this explanation this would correspond to the response of cone-rod appositions whose density peaks at this angle.

(1) ”Packing arrangement of the three cone classes in primate retina”, Roorda et al, Vision Research, Vol.41, 1291-1306, (2001)

GCH