It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
molecules that include sulphur and hydrogen atoms bonded together - they may take a wide range of shapes, but all of them smell of rotten eggs.
"I like to think of the vibration theory of olfaction and its proponents as unicorns. The rest of us studying olfaction are horses." "The problem is that proving that a unicorn exists or does not exist is impossible. This debate on the vibration theory or the existence of unicorns will never end, but the very important underlying question of why things smell the way they do will continue to be answered by the horses among us."
Originally posted by darkbake
In science, unicorns often turn out to be real. Like pretty much every time.
Originally posted by dainoyfb
Yeah, the unicorn statement is extremely arrogant. It parallels the arrogance against civilian science. Yet if it wasn't initially for civilian science and those thinking outside the box, professional science wouldn't even exist. Its not like research into this theory is assumption based. Scientific process is bieng used to qualify it. Horse man doesn't seem to have a stronger argument than the unicorns in this case.
edit on 27-1-2013 by dainoyfb because: of extreme typos.
Originally posted by darkbake
In science, unicorns often turn out to be real. Like pretty much every time.
I am just wondering, how would the difference be? Does this imply that rotten food vibrates differently to other decaying matter that can smell benign or even pleasant to some?
Originally posted by winofiend
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
When you think about what we use smell for, why we consider some things bad or good based purely on smell, it's complicating things to consider them at such a level as the molecule.
It's interesting, and no doubt from the theories put forward and the obstinate yet typical reaction from currently accepted thought, something to look into (at least from my perspective) but it won't break the world if it turns out to be true.
I am just wondering, how would the difference be? Does this imply that rotten food vibrates differently to other decaying matter that can smell benign or even pleasant to some?
We have evolved to recognise certain smells, the same way that we see colours to indicate danger or safety in nature. Big red bugs, dangerous poison.
To me, smell is simply another very small insight into a larger scale concept.
Just like our other senses, they are to perceive the bigger picture. And we only barely do that. We float around on this upper layer of perception, existing so hardcore in such a meaningless reality, and we think this is it. That's all there is. This.
If we were to perceive every aspect of reality in all of it's possible aspects, as we currently are, we'd go mental.
Quantum smells.. I wonder why they say space smells like beef then.
Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
And from there, it's either aliens or Elvis being alive... I've got a finger his ego can pull, so how about that?
Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
Something that smells good to one person may smell really bad to another person.
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
Something that smells good to one person may smell really bad to another person.
Interesting you mention that. My poop dont stink. At least not to me. I am sure it does to you. Your poop dont stink, at least not to you, but I am sure it does to me. I have often wondered why that is as it should have the same smell for all of us.
Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
Something that smells good to one person may smell really bad to another person.
Interesting you mention that. My poop dont stink. At least not to me. I am sure it does to you. Your poop dont stink, at least not to you, but I am sure it does to me. I have often wondered why that is as it should have the same smell for all of us.
lol my poop smells bad to me... I certainly don't have any urge to ingest it.
But yes it's a very complex subject. We need to consider evolutionary associations as well as individual associations developed during ones life time. We can even change our hard wired associations if we try hard enough.
The most established of the three is photosynthesis - the staggeringly efficient process by which plants and some bacteria build the molecules they need, using energy from sunlight. It seems to use what is called "superposition" - being seemingly in more than one place at one time.
Watch the process closely enough and it appears there are little packets of energy simultaneously "trying" all of the possible paths to get where they need to go, and then settling on the most efficient.
Originally posted by Bedlam
(scratches head)
Ya know, it's also pretty well known that deuterated compounds often have distinct chemical differences beyond mere changes in their microwave/ir spectrum quantum mechanical behaviors.
The bond angles and lengths are different for deuterium than for hydrogen, for example. You get physical changes, too, like in shear and viscosity.
This is why deuterated water is toxic in big doses over long periods of time - it's incorporated into enzymes that then just won't fit your biochemistry, because they're mis-shaped or mis-folded.
So, it's a bit ODD to say they deuterated a compound and all that would have changed is the QM resonance spectrum. Yes, that will change, they'll drop in frequency. But the compound will also be shaped very slightly differently, and that fits the standard shape/receptor theory.
Soper explained that some of their results could be controversial, since they contrast with predictions. First, the scientists found that H2O has a longer intramolecular OH bond than D2O’s corresponding OD bond length. Specifically, the OH bond is longer by about 0.03 angstroms, or 3%. Second, the intermolecular hydrogen bond (which connects two separate molecules) is shorter in H2O than in D2O. Here, the difference is about 0.07 angstroms, or 4%. Neither of these differences in bond length had been predicted in previous studies. Further, because the OH/OD bond length difference and the hydrogen bond length difference are not equivalent (3% and 4%), there also exist geometrical differences between the structures of light and heavy water. While previous research had predicted an overall broadening of the H2O structure compared to the D2O structure, Soper and Benmore have pinpointed three specific differences, some of which are in opposition to earlier predictions. For one thing, the intermolecular OH peak is more asymmetric in H2O than D2O. Also, the distance between the hydrogen atoms on neighboring molecules is about 2% larger for H2O than in D2O. Finally, the number of hydrogen bonds per water molecule is less in H2O than in D2O (3.62 vs. 3.76). Together, these structural differences give light water a broader structure, and heavy water a narrower, more tetrahedral shape. Soper said that some of these unexpected results (such as the large degree of asymmetry in the hydrogen bond in H2O compared to D2O and the OH/OD bond length difference) may be contested by computer simulators. He also explained that the hydrogen bond length is caused by small electron movements that impact the proton (in hydrogen) or deuteron positions. Since the proton has a smaller mass than the deuteron, it sits higher in the quantum potential well (that holds the hydrogen atom) compared with the deuteron’s lower position in its potential well. “If that potential well is now perturbed by an approaching water molecule forming a hydrogen bond, then because the proton is higher in the well, it is more likely to be influenced by the approaching water molecule, drawing it away from the parent oxygen, more so than the deuteron, which is deeper in the well, and therefore less sensitive to perturbations from neighboring water molecules,” Soper said. This effect may play a role in the difference between the OH and OD bond lengths.
Originally posted by Bedlam
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
You might inquire into why deuterated water is toxic, then. The bond angle difference for deuterated vs protium water is 0.1 degree - that adds up to "shaped wrong", albeit slightly. The more complex and larger the molecule, the bigger the net shape difference.
If you like, I have dozens upon dozens of scholarly cites. But you can get this yourself by going to google scholar and looking at "deuterium bond angle", or "isotope effect".
edit on 27-1-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)
The bond lengths and bond anglse of different kinds of water molecules are nearly the same