Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Algal Optics

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read For transparent single-celled algae, cell shape alone sets the average photosynthetic boost to exactly the square of the relative refractive index, while strongly bent shapes create bright focal hotspots.

desk verdict The étendue duality is a genuinely useful new idea, but the exact n^2 universal boost does not survive close scrutiny of the time-reversal argument. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15214 v1 pith:BDPW6PZL submitted 2025-06-18 cond-mat.soft physics.bio-phq-bio.SC

Ming Yang , Sumit Kumar Birwa , Raymond E. Goldstein This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softphysics.bio-phq-bio.SC
keywords algalopticsgeometriclensingetenduephotosynthesisbioluminescencecellshaperefraction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Nearly transparent single-celled algae refract and reflect light at the cell-water boundary, and this paper works out what that means for photosynthesis, where sunlight must reach chloroplasts, and bioluminescence, where internally generated light must escape. The central result is a duality: for a cell with relative refractive index $n$, the focusing boost for a small absorber under incoming light equals $n^2$ times the focusing boost for outgoing light from a small emitter, so that $\eta_P(\Omega_2)=n^2\eta_B(\Omega_1)$. When averaged over all light directions, the photosynthetic boost is exactly $n^2$, independent of cell shape and of where the absorber sits, provided total internal reflection does not trap rays indefinitely. This universality means that for convex cells geometry mostly redistributes light rather than increasing or decreasing the total amount captured on average, while strongly eccentric or bent shapes can still create local hotspots with boosts far above $n^2$.

What carries the argument

The central object is the boost factor $\eta$, measuring how ray convergence or divergence amplifies local light intensity, and the mechanism that carries the argument is conservation of étendue, the phase-space volume $E=n^2 A\Omega$ of a light beam, which is conserved in passive optical systems. The paper uses a differential form of étendue conservation to relate the incoming boost $\eta_P=d\Omega_2/d\Omega_1$ and the outgoing boost $\eta_B=dA_1/dA_2$ through the duality $n^2\eta_B(\Omega_1)=\eta_P(\Omega_2)$, with the direction mapping set by Snell's law. The energy-conservation identity $\sum_i f_i(\Omega)=1$ then turns this local duality into the universal direction-averaged result $\eta_P^{\rm avg}=n^2$.

What would settle it

Measure, for a single cell shape, the angular distribution of light emitted by a tiny internal source and the angular distribution of intensity at a tiny internal absorber; if the ratio $\eta_P(\Omega_2)/\eta_B(\Omega_1)$ differs from $n^2$ by more than the experimental error, the duality is false. A simpler numerical falsifier is to count rays that never exit a bent or concave shape after many reflections: if even one trapped ray exists, the average boost must fall below $n^2$ for that shape, showing that the universality claim is not universal.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Working in the geometric-optics limit, the paper defines a boost factor for each problem: for incoming light it is the ratio of the solid angle subtended by the incoming ray bundle to that at the small absorber, and for outgoing light it is the ratio of projected beam areas as light leaves the cell. Using Snell's law, the Fresnel transmission coefficients, and conservation of étendue, it proves the identity $\eta_P(\Omega_2)=n^2\eta_B(\Omega_1)$ for each pair of linked directions. Averaging over all directions and using the energy-conservation sum $\sum_i f_i(\Omega)=1$, which holds when every ray eventually exits the cell, gives an average photosynthetic boost of exactly $n^2$ for any shape and any target position. Numerical ray-tracing of spheres, ellipsoids, and bent ellipsoids resembling dinoflagellate shapes confirms that the average boost stays near $n^2\simeq 1.2$ for convex shapes while the maximum boost at focal spots can exceed 25, and it shows that the duality breaks down near boundaries where total internal reflection traps light, where the average boost falls below 1.

Load-bearing premise

The universal average-boost rule assumes that every light ray entering the cell eventually leaves it, so none is trapped by total internal reflection; near strongly curved or concave boundaries this can fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any convex transparent cell, the direction-averaged photosynthetic boost is exactly $n^2$, so shape alone neither amplifies nor reduces the cell's total light capture; it only redistributes it.
  • Strongly eccentric or bent shapes can create focal hotspots, with maximum central boosts above 25 in the computed examples, so a chloroplast placed near a tip or focal region can receive far more light than an average location.
  • Bioluminescent emission from a point source inside such cells is likewise anisotropic: spindle-like bodies direct light sideways, while crescent bodies bias emission toward the concave side, which can shape how flashing cells signal to neighbors or predators.
  • Because the duality holds after multiple internal reflections and with Fresnel losses, either the incoming or outgoing problem can be simulated and the result mapped to the other, halving the ray-tracing work for arbitrary shapes.
  • The exact $n^2$ average breaks down near boundaries where total internal reflection traps rays; in those regions the average boost is below 1.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the $n^2$ average is robust, then evolutionary pressure on cell shape is more plausibly about directing light to particular organelles than about increasing total absorption; a testable prediction is that chloroplasts in bent species should cluster near the computed bright regions.
  • The duality may carry over to layered or graded-index cells, where the relevant refractive index would be an effective one; one could test whether replacing the cell with a graded-index profile preserves $n^2$ as the mean boost.
  • The same étendue argument could connect the angular emission statistics of flashing cell populations to their tumbling dynamics, making a population of cells a bundle of stochastic beacons whose mean directional output obeys a conservation law.
  • A direct experimental check could use fluorescent microspheres as tiny absorbers inside living cells: measure the boost as a function of position and compare with the angular emission pattern of a point source, which should be related by $n^2$.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a geometric-optics framework for how transparent, weakly refracting algal cell bodies redistribute light, treating both the "incoming" problem (light concentrated onto a small photosynthetic absorber) and the "outgoing" problem (bioluminescence emitted from a small internal source). The authors define boost factors for each problem, derive an etendue-based duality n^2 eta_B(Omega_1) = eta_P(Omega_2), and claim that the orientation-averaged photosynthetic boost is exactly n^2, independent of cell shape and target location, provided total internal reflection does not trap light. Analytical results are given for circular and spherical geometries, perimeter and surface-area averaging laws are derived, and numerical ray-tracing results are presented for ellipsoidal and bent shapes motivated by Pyrocystis species.

Significance. If the central claims are correct, the paper provides an elegant, parameter-free prediction: the average photosynthetic boost is determined solely by the relative refractive index, while spatial maxima can be strongly shape-dependent. The etendue duality and the surface-area/perimeter laws are genuine analytical contributions, and the numerical campaign with open data is a useful resource for the biological optics community. The paper also offers testable hypotheses about chloroplast positioning and bioluminescent directionality. However, the exact n^2 average for a single absorbing target is not established by the presented proof, and the numerical verification for concave shapes has acknowledged but unquantified gaps.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV.C, Eqs. (45)–(47)] The proof of the universal average boost n^2 for a single absorbing target is invalid because the energy-conservation sum sum_i f_i(Omega) = 1 counts outgoing ray histories that return to the emitter after internal reflections, and such histories do not correspond to distinct incoming absorption events. For a perfectly absorbing ball, an incoming ray is stopped at its first pass through the target, so the later reflections in the time-reversed outgoing history never occur. The legitimate domain for the reflection sum is the shell construction in §III.C, where different balls absorb on different passes; Eq. (47) applies that sum to a single target location. Consequently, for a single absorbing chloroplast the average boost should be n^2 times the probability that an outgoing ray exits without ever returning to the target, which is strictly below n^2 whenever Fresnel reflection is present. For a central absorber in a sphere this reduces to the single-pass average in Eq. (36), not Eq. (47); the numerical difference is tiny for n = 1.1 but the exactness of the central claim is lost and the discrepancy grows with n.
  2. [§IV.C and Fig. 5(b)] The universality claim in Eq. (45) that the average boost is n^2 "irrespective of the concave shell shape and the location of the test ball" is contradicted by the paper's own results: Fig. 5(b) and the discussion at the end of §IV.C show that near the boundary, where total internal reflection traps rays, the average boost drops below 1. The text acknowledges this in a parenthetical, but the condition "provided total internal reflection does not trap energy" is not converted into a precise geometric criterion, so the claimed universality is stated more broadly than the proof supports. The authors should either restrict the theorem to shapes and target locations satisfying an explicit no-trapping condition, or state the result as a bound with quantitative corrections.
  3. [§V.D and §V.A] The numerical verification for concave shapes is incomplete in a way that bears directly on the central claim. The last paragraph of §V.D states that rays re-entering the cell after reflection/refraction are not included in the analysis; these are precisely the paths that matter near concave regions where the average boost is expected to deviate from n^2. The paper dismisses them as negligible without quantifying their energy. Additionally, the simulations use an entry-region truncation of 15 target radii (§V.A), discard rays below 10% of initial energy (§V.A) or 1% in the outgoing simulation (§V.D), and report average boosts such as 1.14–1.2 without uncertainty estimates. The reported agreement with Eq. (47) therefore has unquantified systematic and statistical errors, and the claimed numerical confirmation of the universal average is not established for the concave cases.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§V.B, Fig. 9] The caption of Fig. 9 lists panels (a–d) for κ = 0, 0.5, 1, 2, but the text refers to "Fig. 9(e)"; the panel label should be corrected.
  2. [§III.C] The two derivations of α = 1/π are somewhat compressed; in particular, the sentence "this is the linear function E(r) = 2rnf(0)" would benefit from stating the normalization of E explicitly so that Eqs. (11)–(12) are unambiguous.
  3. [Eq. (2)] There is a typo: "The quantify 1−f(θi)" should read "The quantity 1−f(θi)."
  4. [§III.E] The phrase "discussed further at the end of Sc. IV C" contains an abbreviation error; it should be "Sec. IV C."
  5. [§IV.C] The text says "relative reflective index n"; this should be "relative refractive index n."

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the n^2 average boost and the incoming/outgoing duality are derived from Snell's law and etendue conservation, with no fitted parameters or load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, the central claims are the duality relation n^2 eta_B = eta_P (Eq. 44) and the averaged boost n^2 (Eqs. 45-47). These are obtained from standard etendue conservation (Eqs. 39-43), which is an external textbook result cited to Chaves [36], combined with an energy-conservation identity sum_i f_i = 1 for outgoing rays. The refractive index n = 1.1 is an independent literature input from Ueki et al. [2]; no parameter is fitted to the boost values that are subsequently called predictions. The numerical ray tracing in Sec. V is an independent implementation of Snell/Fresnel propagation and is compared with, not fitted to, the analytic formula. Self-citations [34] and [35] concern phototactic dynamics and Volvox fluid dynamics, and are not load-bearing for the optical derivation. The main caveat, that total internal reflection can trap rays and reduce the average boost near boundaries, is explicitly acknowledged by the authors (Sec. IV.C, Fig. 5(b), Fig. 9(b)), so the universal-n^2 statement is already qualified in the paper. Whether the time-reversal argument for a single absorbing target is fully valid is a correctness question, not a circularity: the result does not reduce to its own input by definition or by fitted-data construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on geometric optics, a homogeneous non-absorbing cell, small target size, isotropic orientation averaging, and a no-trapping condition for the universal n^2 result. No free parameters are fitted, and no new entities are introduced.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Geometric optics applies: cell diameter is much larger than the wavelength of visible light, so diffraction and interference are negligible.
    Stated in the Discussion and used throughout; valid for cells >10 um versus wavelength ~0.5 um, but can fail for small cells or high-curvature regions.
  • domain assumption The cell interior is a homogeneous, non-absorbing optical medium with uniform refractive index n = 1.1 (ncell/nwater).
    Stated in Section II; real cells contain chloroplasts, vacuoles, and pigments that scatter and absorb; authors list absorption as future work.
  • domain assumption The absorber or emitter is much smaller than the cell and can be modeled as a small sphere (radius a much smaller than R).
    Stated in the introduction and used throughout; valid for algal photoreceptors (~1-2 um) and scintillons (~0.5-1.5 um) in cells 10-150 um.
  • domain assumption For angular averaging, the cell orientation distribution is uniform, giving isotropic illumination on average.
    Assumed in Sections III.C and IV.B; plausible for tumbling cells but not all environments.
  • domain assumption Total internal reflection does not trap light rays indefinitely, so every ray exits after finitely many reflections.
    Required for the energy-conservation sum in Eq. (46) and the universal average boost n^2 in Eq. (47); the authors note deviations near boundaries where this fails.
  • domain assumption For the surface length and area laws, the body is convex.
    Stated in Sections III.F and IV.B; concave shapes need separate treatment for self-shadowing.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Algal Optics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BDPW6PZL

@misc{pith2026250615214,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Algal Optics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BDPW6PZL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15214}
}
abstract

Nearly a decade ago it was discovered that the spherical cell body of the alga $Chlamydomonas~reinhardtii$ can act as a lens to concentrate incoming light onto the cell's membrane-bound photoreceptor and thereby affect phototaxis. Since many nearly transparent cells in marine environments have complex, often non-axisymmetric shapes, this observation raises fundamental, yet little-explored questions in biological optics about light refraction by the bodies of microorganisms. There are two distinct contexts for such questions: the $absorption$ problem for $incoming$ light, typified by photosynthetic activity taking place in the chloroplasts of green algae, and the $emission$ problem for $outgoing$ light, where the paradigm is bioluminescence emitted from scintillons within dinoflagellates. Here we examine both of these aspects of ``algal optics" in the special case where the absorption or emission is localized in structures that are small relative to the overall organism size, taking into account both refraction and reflections at the cell-water boundary. Analytical and numerical results are developed for the distribution of light intensities inside and outside the body, and we establish certain duality relationships that connect the incoming and outgoing problems. For strongly non-spherical shapes we find lensing effects that may have implications for photosynthetic activity and for the angular distribution of light emitted during bioluminescent flashes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.15214 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Algal optics. (a) Photoreceptor shading in wild type [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Ray tracings for various dinoflagellate geometries [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The two optical problems discussed here. Red lines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Analysis of the eyespot mutant in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Incoming problem for a circle. (a) Boost versus ball [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Geometry to demonstrate duality. (a) Biolumines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Variation with cell shape of maximum intensity boost at the center of the body. (a) Light intensity observed at the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Spatial distribution of intensity boost. (a,b) The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Angular distribution of light emission from the center [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Spatial distribution of maximum focus boost. (a,b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Also let d′ 3 be the distance between S and k′ 1

    S′ is a point in the light ray k′ 1 with SS′⊥ SA, and d3 =|SS′|. Also let d′ 3 be the distance between S and k′ 1. Since ξ = ∠(OA, OA′)≪ 1, we have ∠(n, AA′)≃ π/2 and|AA′|≃ ξ. Geometry then imposes the relations d1 =ξ cosβ, d 2 =ξ cosα, (22) and d3≃d′ 3 =ξ cosα−| SA|∠(k1, k′ 1). (23) To work out the angle ∠(k1, k′

    work page

  2. [2]

    (17) we obtain the boost (14) ηB(θ) = θ′−θ θ′−θ +α′−α +β′−β = 1 n sinα sin(θ−α) sinβ sinθ cosα + cosθ sinα cosβ sinθ −1 , (20) where in the last line we have used Eq

    =γ′−γ =θ′−θ +α−α′ +β′−β, (19) and hence, using Eq. (17) we obtain the boost (14) ηB(θ) = θ′−θ θ′−θ +α′−α +β′−β = 1 n sinα sin(θ−α) sinβ sinθ cosα + cosθ sinα cosβ sinθ −1 , (20) where in the last line we have used Eq. (15) and a product-to-sum trigonometric identity. For the incoming (photosynthetic) case shown in Fig. 6(b), let point A denote the interse...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Foster and R

    K.W. Foster and R. D. Smyth, Light antennas in photo- tactic algae, Microbiol. Rev. 44, 572–630 (1980)

    1980

  4. [4]

    (24) Similar to Eq

    =ξ−(α−α′), we apply Snell’s Law (1) sinβ =n sinα, sinβ′ =n sinα′. (24) Similar to Eq. (17), we obtain α−α′≃ cosβ n cosα(β−β′). (25) Combining with ξ =β−β′, we find ∠(k1, k′

    work page

  5. [5]

    ´ etendue

    =ξ 1− cosβ n cosα , (26) from which we obtain, using Eq. (22) and (23) in (21), ηP (θ) = cosα cosβ− sin(θ−α) sin(β−α) sinθ sinβ cosα cosβ −1 . (27) Trigonometry identities then lead to the duality result ηP (θ) =nηB(θ), (28) namely, the intensity profiles of the two cases are identical up to a factor ofn. This is the two-dimensional analogue of “´ etendue...

    work page

  6. [6]

    stochastic bea- cons

    = 1 4π X i Z dΩi 2n2ηi B(Ω1) = X i 1 4π Z dΩ1n2fi(Ω1) =n2. (47) V. NUMERICAL RESUL TS FOR 3D BODIES In this section, we present numerical results that sup- port the conclusions drawn in the analytical sections above. We consider a two-parameter family of shapes for numerical computations. Built around the parame- terization of ellipsoids, these shapes int...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Kessler, A.M

    J. Kessler, A.M. Nedelcu, C.A. Solari, and D.E. Shelton, Cells Acting as Lenses: A Possible Role for Light in the Evolution of Morphological Asymmetry in Multicellular Volvocine Algae, Evolutionary Transitions to Multicellu- lar Life. Advances in Marine Genomics. Springer, Dor- drecht, 2, 225 (2015)

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    N. Ueki, T. Ide, S. Mochiji, Y. Kobayashi, R. Tokutsu, N. Ohnishi, K. Yamaguchi, S. Shigenobu, K. Tanaka, J. Minagawa, T. Hisabori, M. Hirono, and K. Wakabayashi, Eyespot-dependent determination of the phototactic sign in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii , Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113, 5299 (2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Aleksandra Szczerbiak, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Com- mons

  2. [10]

    Schaller, R

    K. Schaller, R. David, and R. Uhl, How Chlamydomonas keeps track of the light once it has reached the right pho- totactic orientation, Biophys. J. 73, 1562–1572 (1997)

    1997

  3. [11]

    Leptos, M

    K.C. Leptos, M. Chioccioli, S. Furlan, A.I. Pesci and R.E. Goldstein, Phototaxis of Chlamydomonas arises from a tuned adaptive photoresponse shared with multicellular Volvocine green algae, Phys. Rev. E 107, 014404 (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    J´ ekely, Evolution of phototaxis, Phil

    G. J´ ekely, Evolution of phototaxis, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 364, 2795–2808 (2009)

    2009

  5. [13]

    Francis, On the eyespot of the dinoflagellate, Nema- todinium, J

    D. Francis, On the eyespot of the dinoflagellate, Nema- todinium, J. Exp. Biol. 47, 495 (1967)

    1967

  6. [14]

    Schuergers, et al

    N. Schuergers, et al. , Cyanobacteria use micro-optics to sense light direction, eLife 5, e12620 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    T. C. Vogelmann, Plant tissue optics, Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 44, 231 (1993)

    1993

  8. [16]

    Nakane, et al., Asymmetric distribution of type IV pili triggered by directional light in unicellular cyanobacteria Proc

    D. Nakane, et al., Asymmetric distribution of type IV pili triggered by directional light in unicellular cyanobacteria Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 114, 6593 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    freeform optics

    of the filamentous fungus Phycomyces blakesleeanus showed that the light intensity at the cell surface is en- hanced by a factor of∼ 2, while theoretical work suggests an even larger boost [18]. The epidermal cells of certain tropical plant species are thought to act as lenses...

  10. [18]

    Wilde et al

    A. Wilde et al. , Light-controlled motility in prokaryotes and the problem of directional light perception, FEMS Microbiology Reviews 41, 900 (2017)

    2017

  11. [19]

    M. M. Ghobara, et al. , On Light and Diatoms: A Pho- tonics and Photobiology Review, Diatoms: Fundamental and Applications, 129 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    De Tommasi, et al

    E. De Tommasi, et al. , Optics with diatoms: towards efficient, bioinspired photonic devices at the micro-scale Optical Methods for Inspection, Characterization, and Imaging of Biomaterials, 8792, 99 SPIE (2013)

    2013

  13. [21]

    Maibohm, et al

    C. Maibohm, et al. , Comparing optical properties of dif- ferent species of diatoms, Organic Photonic Materials and Devices XVII, 9360, 20 SPIE (2015)

    2015

  14. [22]

    V. R. Humphry, The effects of paraffin oil on phototropic and geotropic responses in Avena coleoptiles, Annals of Biology 30.1, 39 (1966)

    1966

  15. [23]

    D. S. Dennison, et al. , The Phycomyces lens: measure- ment of the sporangiophore intensity profile using a fiber optic microprobe, Planta 179, 1 (1989)

    1989

  16. [24]

    Myneni and J

    R.B. Myneni and J. Ross (Eds.), Photon-vegetation inter- actions: applications in optical remote sensing and plant ecology, (Springer Science & Business media, 2012)

    2012

  17. [25]

    R. A. Bone, et al. , Epidermal cells functioning as lenses in leaves of tropical rain-forest shade plants, Appl. Opt. 24, 1408 (1985)

    1985

  18. [26]

    C. R. Brodersen, et al. , Do Epidermal Lens Cells Facili- tate the Absorptance of Diffuse Light?, American Journal of Botany 94, 1061 (2007)

    2007

  19. [27]

    Plummer, J.G

    W.T. Plummer, J.G. Baker, and J.Van Tassell, Photo- graphic optical systems with nonrotational aspheric sur- faces, Appl. Opt. 38, 3572-3592 (1999)

    1999

  20. [28]

    Cakmakci, B

    O. Cakmakci, B. Moore, H. Foroosh, J.P. Rolland, Optimal local shape description for rotationally non- symmetric optical surface design and analysis, Opt. Ex. 16, 1583-1589 (2008)

    2008

  21. [29]

    Fuerschbach, J.P

    K. Fuerschbach, J.P. Rolland, and K.P. thompson, A new family of optical systems employing φ-polynomial sur- faces, Opt. Ex. 19, 21919-21928 (2011)

    2011

  22. [30]

    Smilie and T.J

    P.J. Smilie and T.J. Suleski, Variable-diameter refractive beam shaping with freeform optical surfaces, Opt. Lett. 36, 4170-4172 (2011)

    2011

  23. [31]

    Swift and W.R

    E. Swift and W.R. Taylor, Bioluminescence and chloro- plast movement in the dinoflagellate Pyrocystis lunula, J. Phycol. 3, 77-81 (1967)

    1967

  24. [32]

    Sweeney, The Circadian Rhythms, Biolumines- cence, Photosynthesis and Organellar Movements in the Large Dinoflagellate, Pyrocystis fusiformis , in H.G

    B.M. Sweeney, The Circadian Rhythms, Biolumines- cence, Photosynthesis and Organellar Movements in the Large Dinoflagellate, Pyrocystis fusiformis , in H.G. Schweiger, ed., International Cell Biology 1980–1981. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (1981)

    1981

  25. [33]

    Heimann, P.L

    K. Heimann, P.L. Klerks and K.H. Hasenstein, Involve- ment of actin and microtubules in regulation of biolumi- nescence and translocation of chloroplasts in the dinoflag- ellate Pyrocystis lunula, Bot. Mar. 52, 170-177 (2009)

    2009

  26. [34]

    F. C. Stephens, Variability of spectral absorption ef- ficiency within living cells of Pyrocystis lunula (Dino- phyta), Marine Biology 122, 325 (1995)

    1995

  27. [35]

    S.H.D.Haddock, M.A.Moline and J.F.Case, Biolumines- cence in the sea, Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 2,443 (2010)

    2010

  28. [36]

    M.I. Latz, M. Bovard, V.VanDelinder, E.Segre, J.Rohr, and A. Groisman, Bioluminescent response of individual dinoflagellate cells to hydrodynamic stress measured with millisecond resolution in a microfluidic device, J. Exp. Biol. 211, 2865 (2008)

    2008

  29. [37]

    Jalaal, N

    M. Jalaal, N. Schramma, A. Dode, H. de Maleprade, C. Raufaste and R.E. Goldstein, Stress-induced dinoflagel- late bioluminescence at the single cell level, Phys. Rev. Lett 125, 028102 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    Tu, et al

    Y.-T. Tu, et al. , Ray Optics Simulation, doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6386611 (2016)

    2016 doi

  31. [39]

    Jackson, Classical Electromagnetism, (John Wiley & Sons, 2021)

    J.D. Jackson, Classical Electromagnetism, (John Wiley & Sons, 2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    Goldstein, et al., preprint (2025)

    R.E. Goldstein, et al., preprint (2025)

    2025

  33. [41]

    Goldstein, Green algae as model organisms for bio- logical fluid dynamics, Annu

    R.E. Goldstein, Green algae as model organisms for bio- logical fluid dynamics, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 47, 343- 375 (2015)

    2015

  34. [42]

    Chaves, Introduction to Nonimaging Optics , 2nd ed

    J. Chaves, Introduction to Nonimaging Optics , 2nd ed. (CRC Press, 2016)

    2016

  35. [43]

    L. O. Bj¨ orn (Ed.),Photobiology: The Science of Life and Light, 2nd ed., (Springer, New York, 2008)

    2008

  36. [44]

    Wada, et al

    M. Wada, et al. , Chloroplast Movement, Annu. Rev. Plant Biol., vol. 54, pp. 455–468(2003)

    2003

  37. [45]

    Airan, K.R

    R.D. Airan, K.R. Thompson, L.E. Fenno, H. Bernstein, K. Deisseroth, Temporally precise in vivo control of in- tracellular signalling, Nature 458, 1025-1029 (2009)

    2009

  38. [46]

    Johnsen, The Optics of Life: A Biologist’s Guide to Light in Nature , (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2012)

    S. Johnsen, The Optics of Life: A Biologist’s Guide to Light in Nature , (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2012)

    2012

  39. [47]

    Modest, Radiative Heat Transfer , 3rd ed., 15 Academic Press, 2013

    Michael F. Modest, Radiative Heat Transfer , 3rd ed., 15 Academic Press, 2013

    2013

  40. [48]

    Al- gal Optics

    M. Yang, S.K. Birwa and R.E. Goldstein, Data for “Al- gal Optics”. Zenodo. doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15552607 (2025)

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.