Rethinking the Process of Vision

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