Luca Turin is a fascinating biophysicist specialized in the science of olfaction. Turin has proposed a revolutionary alternative to the theory about smell that is generally held to be true. The commercial fragrance industry as well as the academic centers that study the sense of smell largely adhere to the “shape theory of olfaction,” which states basically that different smells are created by molecules of different shapes.
Turin, however, developed a plausible alternative to the long-supported shape theory called the “vibration theory of olfaction.” As you probably guessed, he believes that different smells are created by the differing vibratory rates of molecules. While his arguments and proof are compelling, Turin has received both praise and condemnation from his scientific peers for his revolutionary ideas.
Enjoy this charming presentation of Turin describing his theory:
We looked in an earlier post (http://tinyurl.com/yhmbo8w) at the fact that your vocal chords vibrate molecules of air that are then received by the eardrum of another. Speech, song and music all operate on the principle of vibration. All matter vibrates at different rates. The shape and color of any object is established by virtue of vibratory rate. Vibration is everywhere!
Why not in our noses? Turin noted that his critics dismissed his theory for lack of a generally accepted or understood mechanism of reception in the nose for these smell “vibrations,” but does a lack of sufficient understanding of something mean that it doesn’t exist? Taken a step further (as is unfortunately so often the case in the world of scientific research and academia), does that mean that the entire theory should be dismissed outright? Think gravity before Newton. Or, oxygen before Priestley. Did the explanation and naming of the phenomenon make it any more real? Time will tell.
I’ve often heard people refer to “good vibrations.” The Beach Boys sang a popular song about it (their third number-one U.S. hit), after all! You might have heard someone use the term “bad vibe” about someone they met who left them with a negative first impression. Our senses are designed to identify, measure and communicate vibratory perceptions of the world around us and send those observations to the processing centers in our brains for classification and interpretation. Isn’t that marvelous?
What is the nature of the vibrations that you transmit to the world around you? Conversely, what vibrations around you do you give weight and attention to? Have you noticed that when you are in a “good” mood versus a “bad” mood that one type of vibrational quality stands out over another? You may also have heard someone say about someone who is good with animals or plants or children that they are “in tune with” the object of their expertise. Again, vibration.
Maybe we have here another explanation of the difference between optimist and pessimist, inspiration and despair, dignity and lowliness? Perhaps other fields of scientific research might benefit from looking at the questions and problems they face in this light. Who knows, but further investigation is merited…
Gregory Hake 
Cool! I’ve never heard him speak before. I read “The Emperor of Scent” years ago, a story about Luca Turin. Also, Luca wrote a book called “The Secret of Scent” which the BBC said was the best science book of that year. It is very technical, but laced with his entertaining wit. Good reads to add to your eclectic library, if you don’t already have them.
LikeLike
I really hadn’t thought of why we tend to use the word “vibe” or “vibration” – I found this definition: “a distinctive emotional aura experienced instinctively; ‘that place gave me bad vibrations’; ‘it gave me a nostalgic vibe’. ” Such a word definitely warrants more conscious thought of why we use it and what the implications might be as far as giving off vibes and being affected by them – interesting!
LikeLike
Your post about ethos could be applied here. What is the particular ethos of this scientific community? This will have a bearing on the accuracy of their theories which propels or prevents new discoveries.
Is it tainted by jealousy and insecurity or enhanced by open mindedness and collaboration?
I just finished the book “China Syndrome, the True Story of the 21st Century’s First Great Epidemic”, by Karl Taro Greenfield. A very intriguing look at the SARS epidemic. The problems seemed to mostly center around this very subject.
The character we have built or failed to build does determine our usefulness in helping to create a better world.
LikeLike
It is true – time does tell! Fascinating correlations worthy of my meditation (and tweet) today.
LikeLike
Awesome video! I have followed Luca Turin’s story for several years now, being fascinated both by the scientific development of his theory as well as the aesthetics, psychology and history of perfume. His sense of smell and ability to describe fragrance is dead on and full of wit. Brilliant and eccentric, like many scientists on a trail of a mystery, his theories went against the mainstream and consequently his ideas were rejected and even ridiculed within the scientific community. That he didn’t lose hope in the face of the hysteria his work created is inspiring. Frankly when you look at the evidence it makes sense and reveals a lot about the politics and pettiness of what the world considers ‘great institutions’. On the other hand, the fragrance industry’s interest in his work is motivated by the fact that it makes them more money. I am glad that we can look at his research in light of the larger consideration you’ve initiated today, because there is real value in it!
LikeLike
People do become vested in their way of thinking about things, and in the worst case dismiss evidence without even considering its validity. Actually, even worse than this is the incoherent resistance that I’m sure Luca Turin must have run into from the scientific community which was totally invested in the shape theory of smell. In the best case, theory builds upon facts, changes with those facts, and moves forward to some level of integration and understanding greater than any single person or viewpoint. It does translate that we each have the instruments and means for assessment and analysis, and the choice as you say is ours as to what we give weight to incoming and outgoing, which certainly speaks to the level of individual responsibility for perception and influence at all times. Great science lesson!
LikeLike