Search FQXi

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help

Eckard Blumschein: on 2/12/13 at 4:37am UTC, wrote I will not buy the article concerning sound because the problems are known...

John Merryman: on 2/7/13 at 0:19am UTC, wrote Robert, It's good to hear from you. May I suggest you send Zeeya a note...

Robert McEachern: on 2/6/13 at 23:20pm UTC, wrote John, This is hardly "the first time..." I published numerous papers on...

Zeeya Merali: on 2/6/13 at 16:39pm UTC, wrote Thanks James. I hadn't heard of that relationship for sound before. I've...

John Merryman: on 2/6/13 at 2:10am UTC, wrote An interesting and related finding on hearing: "(—For the first...

Domenico Oricchio: on 2/5/13 at 19:05pm UTC, wrote I tried, some time ago, an Innocentive challenge to detect the sick...

Zeeya Merali: on 2/5/13 at 14:05pm UTC, wrote Another discussion thread for January’s podcast, this time on quantum...


Robert McEachern: ""At least that's the premise." That's the problem. "the theorems that..." in Alternative Models of...

Malcolm Riddoch: "@Robert: ""This latter, Ψ(U), can't describe a 'drug test' can it?" For..." in Alternative Models of...

John Cox: "Lorraine, I briefly described the relationship of mass to inertia..." in Emergent Reality: Markus...

Lorraine Ford: "John, I would say that you need to think what you mean by “physical..." in Emergent Reality: Markus...

Lorraine Ford: "Re "I tend to speed-read then review before scoring after reading a good..." in Undecidability,...

John Cox: "George, We shouldn't conflate contradiction with inconsistency. QM has a..." in Watching the Watchmen:...

John Cox: "Georgi, by and large I agree. Near the end of the discussion panel,..." in Watching the Watchmen:...

click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

January 24, 2020

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Quantum Biology: Flight and Sniffery [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 14:05 GMT
Another discussion thread for January’s podcast, this time on quantum biology. This item also deserves a thread of its own because its been in the news quite a bit over the past few weeks.

To recap, in last May’s podcast, I chatted to Luca Turin, who has proposed a controversial quantum model for our sense of smell. The idea is that the our nose differentiates smell based on a molecule’s vibrations, rather than (as conventionally believed) its shape. In that interview, Turin alluded to some tests he was running on humans to see if their noses could pick out a difference in the smell of two molecules with the same shape, but different vibration frequencies. Last week, his work was published in PLoS ONE. The answer is "yes".

I just want to point you to some nice coverage of Turin’s work, as well as of quantum biology in general, over at the BBC, by Jason Palmer. Here’s his article on the new smell result, and another, co-written by Alex Mansfield, on the whole emerging field of quantum biology. The article also describes models that suggest that some birds use quantum effects to navigate. You can also hear the researchers talking to reporter Carinne Piekema about quantum birds in our own January podcast.

For those of you that enjoy listening to scientists speaking in their own words, I must also draw your attention to this nice edition of the BBC World Service’s Discovery programme (here: January 28 edition) because it opens with a snippet from Erwin Schroedinger. We can’t compete with that on the FQXi podcast!

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate

Domenico Oricchio wrote on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 19:05 GMT
I tried, some time ago, an Innocentive challenge to detect the sick passengers in airport: as always I lost.

The interesting thing is that I try to build a little spectrograph to analize the interferons in the air.

Each molecule emit some infrared thermical emission with functional groups.

The idea was to built little solar cell, with doping to obtain the right light absorbment: one for u_1 frequency, and the other for u_2 frequency; if connected in opposite direction (pass band infrared filter), there is a mean activation only for frequency intervall [u1,u2].

I think that the noise work in a similar way: there is an activation for a right range of frequency, to detect the functional group; this is the only information that is useful for the life, and it is similar to the vision.

I think that the first sense is olfaction: virus chemical identification of the chemical environment.

I don't think that the evolution thrown away nothing that work, so that if the olfaction is one of first sense, then the other must use similar mechanism (the visual perception like olfaction of the light?Have they similar genetic?)

I read the Turin idea of the chemosensor, his idea is similar, but use the tunneling: there is contact.

If the olfaction work without contact, then there is an infrared recognition (I think that can be verified with in vitro chemosensor with physical separation to avoid tunneling).

Quantum biology is an interesting topic, because is the intersection between physics, biology and nanotechnology; it is so boring to study a single topic!



Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Merryman wrote on Feb. 6, 2013 @ 02:10 GMT
An interesting and related finding on hearing:

"(—For the first time, physicists have found that humans can discriminate a sound's frequency (related to a note's pitch) and timing (whether a note comes before or after another note) more than 10 times better than the limit imposed by the Fourier uncertainty principle. Not surprisingly, some of the subjects with the best listening precision were musicians, but even non-musicians could exceed the uncertainty limit. The results rule out the majority of auditory processing brain algorithms that have been proposed, since only a few models can match this impressive human performance."

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali replied on Feb. 6, 2013 @ 16:39 GMT
Thanks James. I hadn't heard of that relationship for sound before. I've tweeted that article now -- some nice sound clips on it too.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Feb. 6, 2013 @ 23:20 GMT

This is hardly "the first time..."

I published numerous papers on this subject twenty years ago.

See for example:

"Hearing it like it is: Audio Signal Processing the Way the Ear Does It", DSP Applications, February, 1994

"Hearing it like it is Part 2: Sound Demodulation via Parallel Filter Banks", DSP and Multimedia Technology, May 1994.

Those papers also give references to my earlier papers and patents on the subject.

You may recall that the Fourier uncertainty principle, and how to get around it, was also discussed in my essay submitted to the last FQXI essay contest.

Rob McEachern

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Feb. 7, 2013 @ 00:19 GMT

It's good to hear from you. May I suggest you send Zeeya a note suggesting it as a topic. There are many aspects of physics which are being ignored, or overlooked and your contest entry was very enlightening. The more voices and subjects raised, the more likely the science media, of which Zeeya is a member, will begin to realize physics has been sidetracked by a somewhat dubious canon.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.