Talk:Förster resonance energy transfer

message: In the introduction "virtual photons" are mentioned. This is not true, because if there were virtual photons the distance dependency would be 1/r² and not 1/r^6...Essentially there are no photons involved, also no virtual ones!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.84.253.121 (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the mechanism of interaction is via a dipole-induced-dipole interaction. Corrected accordingly. --Trevva (talk) 09:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

text: The term ‘virtual photon’ in the introduction is correct (see G. D. Scholes, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 54 (2003) 57–87; A. Salam, J. Chem. Phys. 122 (2005) 044112; G. J. Daniels, R. D. Jenkins, D. S. Bradshaw and D. L. Andrews, J. Chem. Phys. 119 (2003) 2264-2274; P. Andrew and W. L. Barnes, Science 290 (2000) 785-788; C. E. Finlayson, D. S. Ginger and N. C. Greenham, Chem. Phys. Lett. 338 (2001) 83-87; D. P. Craig and T. Thirunamachandran, ‘Molecular Quantum Electrodynamics’, Dover Publications, 1998, p. 142).  The 1/r² distance dependence corresponds to radiative transfer, which is mediated by a real photon.  In contrast, non-radiative (Forster) transfer involves a virtual photon in the language of quantum electrodynamics.  The latter theory, unsurpassed in the description of light-matter interactions, is unequalled in accuracy in comparison to experiment.  It is correct to say that a real photon process does not correspond to 1/r6, but it is a virtual photon that couples the transition dipole moments in FRET. C230057 (talk) 11:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

text: The rules of conservation of energy and momentum can temporarily be suspended due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.  This allows for the creation and annihilation of a virtual photon over a minuscule intermediary time-period.  Following the annihilation of the virtual photon, energy and momentum are conserved.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by C230057 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

text: All electro-magnetic forces are intermediated by virtual photons. 
--134.2.187.63 (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NO PHOTONS involved 

message: Fluorescence in the life sciences has now its own article as Fluorescence was the general page. I do not want edit wars so could someone link it in here, plz? Plus there is a nicer picture there of FRET. Squidonius (talk) Post edited on --Squidonius (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Fluorescence in the life sciences

message: I removed the following paragraph from the article page:
″It appears that the referred equation for Förster distance is not consistent in the book (Joseph R. Lakowicz, Principles of Fluorescence Spectroscopy)  (page 445,446). A factor 1000 is wrong. A calculation of units, shows that the equation should instead read:
:  {R_0}^6 = \frac{9 \,(\ln 10) \, \kappa^2 \,Q_D}{128 \, \pi^5 \, N_A \,n^4} J(\lambda) = \frac{9 \,(\ln 10) \, \kappa^2 \,Q_D}{128 \, \pi^5 \, N_A \,n^4} \frac{\int F_{\rm D}(\lambda) \, \epsilon_{\rm A}(\lambda) \, \lambda^4 \, d\lambda}{\int F_{\rm D}(\lambda) \, d\lambda} 
This conclusion needs reference to original scientific papers. See discussion tab:  Förster distance ambiguity″
If the equation in the article is wrong, and you have a source, then just change the equation.  The above is discussion.  128.200.11.106 (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Förster distance ambiguity II

message: I think the problem lies in the conversion of the original J coefficient in the Förster equation (which uses the cross-sectional absorptivity coefficient, σ) into the extinction coefficient, ε. See Molar_attenuation_coefficient.
This is the derivative from the original rate of energy transfer equation with σ:
:(6)  {R_0}^6 = \frac{9}{128 \, \pi^5} \, \frac{\kappa^2 \,Q_D}{n^4} {\int F_{\rm D}(\lambda) \, \sigma_{\rm A}(\lambda) \, \lambda^4 \, d\lambda}
See http://spie.org/samples/PM194.pdf
The equation should read when using ε:
:(7)  {R_0}^6 = \frac{2.07}{128 \, \pi^5 \, N_A} \, \frac{\kappa^2 \,Q_D}{n^4} {\int F_{\rm D}(\lambda) \, \epsilon_{\rm A}(\lambda) \, \lambda^4 \, d\lambda} 
2.07 is a result of 9*Ln(10)/10. As σ = Ln(10)/ 10  {N_a}  ε (in m^2).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.61.9.30 (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Förster distance ambiguity III

message: I found this article and think it is relevant to this page.  However, it seems premature to alter an encyclopedic entry based on one study.  Never the less, documenting it on the talk page seemed appropriate.  In short, the study shows that energy transfer can occur at near 100% efficiency between dipoles even if they are orthogonal to each other.  According to the authors, this refutes Förster's theory since parallel orientations are required for his dipole resonant mechanism to function.  The authors suggest a "low-frequency mode of coupling via intramolecular vibrations."  But it seems that this suggestion requires more corroboration.  Cheers, Wolfworks (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Competition for Förster 

message: I'd like to remove the refimprove template. I think the article has sufficient references now. I will continue to work on replacing primary sources and formatting references.  Thoughts? Mllyjn (talk) 02:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional citations for verification? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Förster resonance energy transfer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130717083912/http://coil.bio.ed.ac.uk:80/Protocols/FRET.htm to http://coil.bio.ed.ac.uk/Protocols/FRET.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The Jablonski diagram might be misleading as the energy levels of donor and acceptor don't have to be equal, only the energy difference has to match.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.230.171.51 (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jablonski diagram 

message: Any chance of getting the correct spelling of Fluorophore onto the second image?  Plantsurfer 10:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling error in diagram

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Förster resonance energy transfer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120629220328/http://www.olympusfluoview.com/applications/fretintro.html to http://www.olympusfluoview.com/applications/fretintro.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What does the word "resonance" signify in the term "FRET"? The article contains it only in the combination "resonance energy transfer", but also uses just "energy transfer" many times and does not explain what this "resonance" is supposed to mean here. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Resonance" 

message: I rearranged the information already present in the applications section to fall into more clear-cut categories than "biology" or "chemistry." I also added details as well as other potential applications of FRET. Snowwhite5567 (talk) 06:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Applications