Sounds reasonable - after all, light is just electromagnetic radiation of a certain frequency, so evolution "just" had to "develop" a few receptors tuned to some of the most important frequencies. Same for hearing and sound waves. Smell however has to detect a huge range of chemicals in the air.
No, it does not. Your eye has no receptors to detect a chair, a stone or a dog. They detect a spectrum. Why should the nose work different?
"infrared theory of smell - a theory that the olfactory sense organ functions as an infrared spectrometer. It assumes that odorants each have a unique infrared absorption spectrum, which produces transient cooling of the cilia in the olfactory epithelium."
This book will answer most of your questions: https://www.amazon.de/Sense-Smell-Robert-Hamilton-Wright/dp/...
This is not bad either
Luca Turin - A Method for the Calculation of Odor Character from Molecular Structure July 2002Journal of Theoretical Biology 216(3):367-85
why would it?
AFAIK a lot of proteins are specialised wrt the many bio-chemical reactions of the body.
2. The other book, while very old, addresses most critique points.
3. The US military has successful applications of this theory in creating non explosives odors of explosive substances for training dogs.
The wikipedia entry for the vibration theory of olfaction has plenty of links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibration_theory_of_olfaction?...
It didn't help the scientific debate that Turin's 2002 book contains some ad-hominem insults to scientists who had voiced challenges to his theory.
If the vibration theory has ever succeeded to uncover structure-smell relationships (like in the application with the US military that you quote), the it is because the vibrational spectrum of a molecule encodes its shape and internal flexibility. It does not mean that all olfactory receptors perform spectroscopy, as Turin claimed (note the past tense).
The wikipedia entry for the vibration theory of olfaction has plenty of links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibration_theory_of_olfaction?...
It didn't help the scientific debate that Turin's 2002 book contains some ad-hominem insults to scientists who had voiced challenges to his theory.
If the vibration theory has ever succeeded to uncover structure-smell relationships (like in the application with the US military that you quote), it is because the vibrational spectrum of a molecule encodes its shape and internal flexibility. It does not mean that all olfactory receptors perform spectroscopy, as Turin claimed (note the past tense - he stepped back from that claim at least 8 years ago).
Most of the critiques are debunked in the book from 1982 that I linked.
Much has happened in olfaction since 1982. A very small proportion of that work has actually debunked the vibration theory of olfaction.
It's a pity, since that theory had some very appealing properties. But it just doesn't align with the current experimental evidence.
edit: By the way, all of the observations mentioned can be explained by classical ligand-receptor interactions. No need for esoteric assumptions like spectroscopy performed by olfactory receptors.
Well, it talks exactly about the points you mentioned and that are listed in Wiki. This book was decades ahead of its time. Seriously.
There are anecdotal observations and theoretical arguments that support the vibration theory. But all aspects of it can be explained using less exotic models of ligand-receptor interaction. Proponents of the vibration theory are ignorant of those alternative explanations. The experimental evidence does not give a conclusive picture, either. Some experiments have clearly falsified aspects of the vibration theory, whereas the key experiments that support it suffer from systematic weaknesses.
Therefore, unless texperimental evidence appears that clearly supports that olfactory receptors perform electron-tunneling spectroscopy, I remain unconvinced.