“Light That Appears to Come from a Source That Does Not Exist” I. Stern, Y. Bloch, E. Grynszpan, M. Kahn, Y. Aharonov, J. Dressel, E. Cohen, and J. C. Howell, Phys. Rev. A 109, 012206 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.109.012206
The paper, while presenting an interesting phenomenon termed “optical ventriloquism,” suffers from significant shortcomings in both its reliance on technology, particularly CMOS sensors, and the assumption that Fourier transforms can perfectly replicate physical reality. By analyzing these weaknesses, we can argue for a more holistic approach to understanding light and wave phenomena, grounded in theories like the Unified Theory of Energy.
Weaknesses in the CMOS Sensor and Post-Processing
The experiment relies heavily on CMOS sensors to detect the transverse shifts in light at interference minima. However, these sensors are far from perfect, especially in scenarios that demand high precision for detecting minute wavefront shifts. CMOS sensors, while useful for their affordability and integration, introduce noise, quantization errors, and limitations in resolution that can distort the real behavior of light in critical experiments like this one.
Post-processing, as described in the paper, compensates for these limitations by using automatic exposure adjustments and integrating flux measurements across camera positions. This is where much of the distortion of reality occurs. By applying post-processing algorithms to the captured data, the experimenters attempt to reconstruct the “truth” of what happens at interference minima, but in reality, these processes are manipulating data that are already flawed. This distorts the interpretation of optical ventriloquism, creating artifacts or shifts that may not perfectly reflect the real behavior of light.
The assumption that we can perfectly “capture” reality through such technology is problematic. CMOS sensors and post-processing are not neutral tools; they actively shape and sometimes distort the results. This leads us to question whether the conclusions drawn about optical ventriloquism—light appearing to come from a source that doesn’t exist—are a genuine physical phenomenon or partly an artifact of the detection methods used.
The Fourier Transform Assumption: A Fundamental Flaw
A larger issue in this paper is its reliance on the Fourier transform as the bedrock for understanding the wave behavior of light. Fourier transforms decompose signals into sine and cosine components, allowing for convenient mathematical manipulation, especially in digital systems like GPUs. However, this decomposition is not an exact replica of reality. It’s an abstraction that breaks down complex phenomena into manageable parts, but it fails to capture the richness and dynamism of light’s behavior—particularly in systems involving superoscillations and interference.
The Fourier framework assumes that by summing lower-frequency components, we can describe any complex behavior. However, the concept of superoscillations—where local frequencies can exceed the highest Fourier components—had to be introduced precisely because the traditional Fourier decomposition is flawed in capturing these behaviors. This phenomenon highlights how the Fourier transform’s reductionist approach can be misleading, as it fails to account for the more complex, emergent frequencies that arise from wave interference and cannot be predicted from the individual Fourier components alone. Superoscillations arise from the interference of lower frequencies but exhibit higher-frequency behaviors that Fourier transforms don’t fully predict or explain.
In this sense, Fourier transforms are like anatomical drawings: they provide a useful, simplified view but are not the whole story. This is especially problematic when data from such transforms is then fed into GPUs or digital systems for further manipulation. The belief that we can play with such data inside a GPU as if it were an exact model of reality is flawed. Just as an artist who only sketches corpses may misunderstand the dynamics of a living model, scientists who rely solely on Fourier transforms may miss the full, dynamic behavior of light.
A Call for Holistic Approaches
What is needed is a more holistic approach—one that treats the phenomenon of light as a complex, emergent system rather than something that can be neatly dissected into components. The Unified Theory of Energy, for instance, offers a framework that doesn’t just decompose energy interactions but seeks to understand the interconnectedness and flow of energy in its entirety across all scales. This theory suggests that phenomena like superoscillations and optical ventriloquism are not outliers to be shoehorned into existing frameworks but part of a broader, more intricate web of reality that we must understand holistically.
By advocating for methods that observe systems in their totality, we can move beyond the limitations of Fourier transforms and digital processing. We should develop experimental setups and theoretical frameworks that capture the full scope of radiative behavior, without distorting it through sensors, decompositions, or digital simulations.
A More Realistic Title
The title, “Light That Appears to Come from a Source That Does Not Exist,” inherently carries bias. It presupposes that light can emerge from nowhere, which is misleading. A more appropriate title might be:
“A Case of Misleading Data: Light Our Sensors Detected, But Fourier Thought Shouldn’t Appear.”
This removes the implication that light is coming from nowhere and instead highlights the true issue: that our tools and methods, particularly Fourier transforms and post-processing, are distorting the real behavior of light.
Conclusion
While the paper presents an interesting experimental setup and touches on a novel optical phenomenon, its overreliance on CMOS sensors, post-processing, and the Fourier transform as a model for reality limits its impact. We must move beyond these reductionist approaches and adopt more holistic methods that account for the full, dynamic behavior of light. As in art, studying a subject that is dead, dissected, and decomposed offers only a limited understanding—if we truly want to grasp the nature of light, we must treat it as the living, dynamic system it is.
Recommended Citations
I. Stern, Y. Bloch, E. Grynszpan, M. Kahn, Y. Aharonov, J. Dressel, E. Cohen, and J. C. Howell, Phys. Rev. A 109, 012206 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.109.012206
M. Vera, The Unified Theory of Energy (2020). Freely available at https://michaelvera.net.
Leave a Reply