Today’s comments
July 30th, 2007 | No Comments »A correspondent writes making the points that my explanation of the vision process would be improved if I had shown how the work differs from ‘known models’……and….that my explanation doesn’t seem consistent with known biology. The latter point first…the discipline underlying my work is physics and not biology (I am reminded of a remark made to me some time ago that there is “precious little physics in vision science”). Over the course of my work it has become clear to me that, in the intervening years since Young correctly defined the trichromicity of the vision process, the discipline of biology (and more recently genetics) have come to the fore and dominate discussion in the field. But, what if, after Young’s correct deduction, science took a wrong turn and created an incorrect model to explain trichromicity? It is my premise that this is exactly what has happened! The ‘standard model’ accepted now for a hundred years is totally at variance with any physical reality that might logically explain how an image is formed, the asymmetric morphology of receptors on the retinal surface, and on and on…! I’m afraid that physics got lost somewhere along the way.
I have assumed in my presentation that the logic (embodied in my “Rosetta Stone” diagram) of the explanation would be self-evident. It is extraordinarily simple to understand directly explaining the historically accepted odd morphology of retinal receptors, the color vision experiments of Edwin Land (the true genius in the field!) and much much more. I had not felt, and do not feel, the need to contrast my thoughts with the old incorrect model. My explanation will have to stand on its’ own.
A note…it seems recently to have been recognized http://nine-radical.blogspot.com/ that my contention (really a fundamental point!) that the retina forms the Fourier plane of the optics of the eye would seem to be correct. But, again this is physics (actually neuroscience) and not biology!
On the subject of a predictive experiment that could be performed that would validate (or invalidate) my explanation. I have proposed such an experiment on a number of occasions to the Roorda group at Berkeley (last on April 3, 2007) and will repeat that request here:
“I repeat my proposal that measurement of the wavelength sensitivity of ‘retinal mosaics’, made by Rooda & Williams (Nature, Vol.397, pp 520-522, 11 February 1999) at a retinal angle of one degree, be made at larger retinal angles. I predict that such measurements will show an increasing density of green ‘cones’ with increasing retinal angle reaching a maximum density (i.e., total green response) at retinal angles of 7-8 degrees. These green sensitive centers will not (could not because there are very few cones here) correspond to cone response but rather to cone-rod appositions which reach a maximum at that angle.”
GCH
7/30/07
