believe that this absorption phenomenon can have anything to do with the quality of odour.
My friend Mr. T. H. Fairbrother writes regarding this controversy —
“Whilst I do not for one moment suggest that the whole phenomena of smell can be explained entirely in terms of chemical constitution, I do maintain that it has much to do with it, and T certainly think that more valuable information about the cause of various odours has been obtained from considerations of chemical constitution than from the many extravagant physical theories which do not lead us very far. In my view the physicists arc begging the question, because they usually postulate something which we cannot prove, and whilst it is possible that the vibration of electrons causes smell, how much wiser does that statement make us ? One might easily say that it was possible that the bombardment of electrons caused smell, etc. On the chemical side, however, we are bound down to experimental facts, and we do know that csterification of carboxylic acids does bring about a fruity odour invariably, etc. Chemical constitution cannot explain fully all these phenomena, because chemical formulz themselves are only approximations, but the effect of groups in a nucleus has done much to help synthetic production of odorous bodies. When the physicist can control the vibrations of his electrons and make them rotate in accordance with his will, then he may be able to synthesise new odours—till then we have no means of testing his theories.”
The older view of olfaction—and many modern scientists, as we see, still adhere to it—is that the odorous molecule acts as a chemical reagent upon the olfactory hairs. And there is something to be said for this opinion.
To begin with, no one doubts nowadays that
