Can pair of neurons affect each other?

[Eagle9]

Good day!
When designing the integrated circuits the engineers are trying to somehow decrease parasitic capacitance and parasitic inductance that arise from the fact that conductors are closely placed to each other. I would like to know, does the analogous phenomena exist in human’s brain?

Indeed, we know that the electric signals are transmitted though the axons and then the generated electric field closes and opens the Sodium/Potassium channels.

But what if two/more neighboring pair of axons/neurons are placed close/parallel to each other? Can the first pair of axon’s electric field somehow affect its neighbor’s Sodium/Potassium channels, force them to open and thus affecting the brain’s performance in total?

Two different cases: in first case two interconnected neurons are far from two other interconnected ones. In the second case these two pairs are much closer. Question-does this approach change anything?.

In other words, imagine that we take the same amount of neurons and the number and the order of inter-neural connections (synapsis) is the same but the distance is much larger between pair of neurons, so the brain is somehow “opened”/”widened”, what would happen? Brain’s performance would be different?

 

[leopold]

since there isn't any metal involved there can't be any inductive coupling.
capacitive coupling relies on electrons and the associated EM field which i do not believe axions possess.

 

[Eagle9]

leopold

since there isn't any metal involved there can't be any inductive coupling.

So, only metal/conductor can cause electromagnetic induction?

capacitive coupling relies on electrons and the associated EM field which i do not believe axions possess

So, there is no difference if we “open”/”widen” the brain, right?

 

[leopold]

leopold

So, only metal/conductor can cause electromagnetic induction?

i can only speak in regards to my electronics education.
as far as i know, a voltage can only be induced in a metal by a varying magnetic field.
not only the change itself, but also on how fast it takes to get there.

So, there is no difference if we “open”/”widen” the brain, right?

interesting question.
could we spread out a brain over an acre?

i think you are talking about "cross talk" and similar interference.
the only possibility i can think of is one axion "modulating" anothers signal, but i assume that this can't happen because of "absorption limits".
in other words, one axion cannot absorb adjacent axions molecules.

 

[wellwisher]

Neurons function within an aqueous medium, with water a key part of the overall process. The neurons will not work without water and/or will not work if replaced with any other solvent. Yet water is not given the proper role in the process.

The two cations, sodium and potassium were chosen by nature, because each cation impacts water in the opposite way. Sodium ions are kosmotropes and will create more order within water than pure water, by itself. While potassium ions are chaotropes and will cause chaos or disorder in water, more than pure water, all by itself. The role of these cations is to help control that binary switch that exists within water.

These cations do not exist alone, like isolate charges in water. Rather they have hydration (water) shells that insulate the cations, so their impact is more connected the water and the movement of hydrogen protons in the water around the cations and beyond.

Water forms hydrogen bonds, with hydrogen bonding having both covalent and van der Waals bonding character. The first type of bonding impacts electrons in orbitals (like charges), while the second impacts dipoles (opposite charges). These two bonding states are close in energy, but separated by an energy barrier, and can act like a binary switch. The sodium and potassium cations each flip the switch in one direction stronger, than it occurs in pure water. Pure water has it own high and low density regions (clustering) that reflect which of the two switch states is dominant in that cluster. The cations add switch capacitance.

The fastest moving thing in water is the hydrogen proton. Cations like sodium and potassium have to carry around water as hydration shells and will move at least an order of magnitude slower. Beyond the migration speed of the hydrogen proton, information can also be conducted in water via the hydrogen bonding that connects all the water as a liquid matrix.

The net effect is the information in water moves much faster than the movement of the cations, and acts to like the husband setting up the new house before the wife and children arrive. Then the cation family arrives on the slow floating cationic barge. The house is roughed it by the water (husband) for the wife, who will then add the finishing touches. Both information signals are needed because the cations and migration of molecules carry the weight needed for a more permanent change in the information structure. Consciousness is more water based thereby making it fluid and adaptive. While memory is more solid state and carries the capacitance needed for wired subroutine.

 

[Eagle9]

leopold

i can only speak in regards to my electronics education.
as far as i know, a voltage can only be induced in a metal by a varying magnetic field.
not only the change itself, but also on how fast it takes to get there.

Well, I need the answer from neuroscientist, can anybody help me?

interesting question.
could we spread out a brain over an acre?

Really very interesting, has anybody tried to do it? Of course not with human’s brain but with monkey's one for example.

i think you are talking about "cross talk" and similar interference.
the only possibility i can think of is one axion "modulating" anothers signal, but i assume that this can't happen because of "absorption limits".

What do you mean under "absorption limits"?

in other words, one axion cannot absorb adjacent axions molecules.

What kind of absorption do you mean?

wellwisher

Neurons function within an aqueous medium, with water a key part of the overall process. The neurons will not work without water and/or will not work if replaced with any other solvent. Yet water is not given the proper role in the process.

Ok, but what if we “open/widen” the brain in the same aqueous medium?

The two cations, sodium and potassium were chosen by nature, because each cation impacts water in the opposite way. Sodium ions are kosmotropes and will create more order within water than pure water, by itself. While potassium ions are chaotropes and will cause chaos or disorder in water, more than pure water, all by itself. The role of these cations is to help control that binary switch that exists within water.

Well, frankly saying it is first time I met these terms, are all ions divided into kosmotropes and chaotropes?

These cations do not exist alone, like isolate charges in water. Rather they have hydration (water) shells that insulate the cations, so their impact is more connected the water and the movement of hydrogen protons in the water around the cations and beyond.

Water forms hydrogen bonds, with hydrogen bonding having both covalent and van der Waals bonding character. The first type of bonding impacts electrons in orbitals (like charges), while the second impacts dipoles (opposite charges). These two bonding states are close in energy, but separated by an energy barrier, and can act like a binary switch. The sodium and potassium cations each flip the switch in one direction stronger, than it occurs in pure water. Pure water has it own high and low density regions (clustering) that reflect which of the two switch states is dominant in that cluster. The cations add switch capacitance.

The fastest moving thing in water is the hydrogen proton. Cations like sodium and potassium have to carry around water as hydration shells and will move at least an order of magnitude slower. Beyond the migration speed of the hydrogen proton, information can also be conducted in water via the hydrogen bonding that connects all the water as a liquid matrix.

The net effect is the information in water moves much faster than the movement of the cations, and acts to like the husband setting up the new house before the wife and children arrive. Then the cation family arrives on the slow floating cationic barge. The house is roughed it by the water (husband) for the wife, who will then add the finishing touches. Both information signals are needed because the cations and migration of molecules carry the weight needed for a more permanent change in the information structure. Consciousness is more water based thereby making it fluid and adaptive. While memory is more solid state and carries the capacitance needed for wired subroutine.

Well, everything this is very interesting of course, but I would like to know if “widening” the brain (in aqueous medium of course) changes anything in performance of brain? Can one pair of neuron’s electric field somehow affect another pair’s performance?

 

[Aqueous Id]

leopold

Well, I need the answer from neuroscientist, can anybody help me?

Actually leopold's answer was very good. I would only add that any coupling between axons as you imagine it can be viewed more generally as the interaction between a pair of antennas. Obviously you need very good conductors for that. In order to even begin to be feasible in living tissue the conductors would have to be gold.

This is not at all how impulses travel down the axons. It's a biochemical process which is not subject to the same constraints as conduction in wire. It's done by transport of ions. As you will note from the explanation below, the "nerve's wire" is a chain of voltage gated channels, each of which is a molecular subsystem unto itself, not a mere conductor:


https://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/si...0/chapter14/animation__the_nerve_impulse.html

 

[wellwisher]

Well, everything this is very interesting of course, but I would like to know if “widening” the brain (in aqueous medium of course) changes anything in performance of brain? Can one pair of neuron’s electric field somehow affect another pair’s performance?

Let me answer it with a citation about water.

Due to the partial covalence of water's hydrogen bonding, electrons are not held by individual molecules but are easily distributed amongst water clusters giving rise to coherent regions [1691] capable of interacting with local electric [1692] and magnetic fields and electromagnetic radiation [1

Water by forming partial covalent bonding, create coherent regions that are impacted by electric fields.

Water, being dipolar, can be partly aligned by an electric field and this may be easily shown by the movement of a stream of water by an electrostatic source [163]. Very high field strengths (5 x 109 V m-1) are required to reorient water in ice such that freezing is inhibited [251], with lower fields (105 V m-1) encouraging ice formation in supercooled water [1327] by weakening the hydrogen bonding. Even partial alignment of the water molecules with the electric field will cause pre-existing hydrogen bonding to become bent or broken.

The impact of electric fields in water is to cause pre-existing hydrogen bonding within covalent based coherent regions to become bent to broken disrupting the order. This is why ice formation is inhibited (can't form order). The sodium ions, by forming structure in water, favor the covalent aspect of hydrogen bonding, resisting the electric field induction. The potassium has the opposite impact with both the electric field and potassium causing hydrogen bonds to become more bent and broken.

The sodium ions, which move signals along the outside of neurons, help cancel electric field inductions in water, when they migrate in water. They help to keep order in water when the electric field promotes chaos.

Note; liquid water forms tetrahedral hydrogen bonding at the 109 degree angle; coherent regions. This is needed for bonding orbital overlap. An electric field, on the other hand, tries to align the dipole charges at 180 degrees. This breaks the tetrahedral bonding, by increasing the angles so covalent is not possible. Van der Waal is only possible. The sodium helps by pushing the bond back toward 109 degrees (more or less).

 

[Eagle9]

Aqueous Id

Actually leopold's answer was very good. I would only add that any coupling between axons as you imagine it can be viewed more generally as the interaction between a pair of antennas. Obviously you need very good conductors for that. In order to even begin to be feasible in living tissue the conductors would have to be gold.

But in brain there are no such good conductors as far as I know. So, approaching or receding the pair of neurons will not matter, right?

This is not at all how impulses travel down the axons. It's a biochemical process which is not subject to the same constraints as conduction in wire. It's done by transport of ions. As you will note from the explanation below, the "nerve's wire" is a chain of voltage gated channels, each of which is a molecular subsystem unto itself, not a mere conductor:

https://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/si...0/chapter14/animation__the_nerve_impulse.html

Well, I know how the nerve impulses propagate through axons simply I wanted to draw a parallel between electronic equipments (the integrated circuits/ microprocessors and etc.) and brain. As I conclude from this topic such parallel is not justified and such mechanical relocation of pair of neurons:

wellwisher

Water by forming partial covalent bonding, create coherent regions that are impacted by electric fields.

And what does this impact cause?

Water, being dipolar, can be partly aligned by an electric field and this may be easily shown by the movement of a stream of water by an electrostatic source

Do you mean that field lines of the electric field can re-orientate/rotate the water molecules?

The impact of electric fields in water is to cause pre-existing hydrogen bonding within covalent based coherent regions to become bent to broken disrupting the order. This is why ice formation is inhibited (can't form order). The sodium ions, by forming structure in water, favor the covalent aspect of hydrogen bonding, resisting the electric field induction. The potassium has the opposite impact with both the electric field and potassium causing hydrogen bonds to become more bent and broken.

The sodium ions, which move signals along the outside of neurons, help cancel electric field inductions in water, when they migrate in water. They help to keep order in water when the electric field promotes chaos.

Note; liquid water forms tetrahedral hydrogen bonding at the 109 degree angle; coherent regions. This is needed for bonding orbital overlap. An electric field, on the other hand, tries to align the dipole charges at 180 degrees. This breaks the tetrahedral bonding, by increasing the angles so covalent is not possible. Van der Waal is only possible. The sodium helps by pushing the bond back toward 109 degrees (more or less).

Ok, this is interesting, but I want to get the answer for this question only:

Two different cases: in first case two interconnected neurons are far from two other interconnected ones. In the second case these two pairs are much closer. Question-does this approach change anything?.

Can the variable (accomplished in experiments by scientists) distance between pairs of neurons affect brain’s overall performance? Yes or no?

 

[rpenner]

Well, everything this is very interesting of course, but I would like to know if “widening” the brain (in aqueous medium of course) changes anything in performance of brain? Can one pair of neuron’s electric field somehow affect another pair’s performance?

Let me answer it with a citation about water.

Due to the partial covalence of water's hydrogen bonding, electrons are not held by individual molecules but are easily distributed amongst water clusters giving rise to coherent regions [1691] capable of interacting with local electric [1692] and magnetic fields and electromagnetic radiation [1

That's not a citation. That's an unsourced quotation that cites other works. The source was http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/magnetic.html and the 6 footnotes by the two quoted sections expand to the following list of citations of (mostly) peer-reviewed scientific publications:

• E. Del Giudice, E. C. Fuchs and G. Vitiello, Collective molecular dynamics of a floating water bridge, Water 2 (2010) 69-82.
• Á. G. Marín and D. Lohse, Building water bridges in air: Electrohydrodynamics of the floating water bridge, Physics of fluids 22 (2010) 122104.
• L. Montagnier, J. Aïssa, S. Ferris, J.-L. Montagnier, C. Lavallée, Electromagnetic signals are produced by aqueous nanostructures derived from bacterial DNA sequences, Interdiscip. Sci. Comput. Life Sci. 1 (2009) 81-90.
• S. T. Bramwell, Ferroelectric ice, Nature 397 (1999) 212-213.
• S. V. Schevkunov and A. Vegiri, Electric field induced transitions in water clusters, J. Mol. Struct. (Theochem) 593 (2002) 19-32.
• S. Wei, X. Xiaobin, Z. Hong and X. Chuanxiang, Effects of dipole polarization of water molecules on ice formation under an electrostatic field, Cryobiology 56 (2008) 93-99.
• L. Montagnier, J. Aissa, E. Del Giudice, C. Lavallee, A. Tedeschi and G. Vitiello, DNA waves and water, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 306 (2011) 012007, arXiv:1012.5166v1 [q-biT].
• E. C. Fuchs, J. Woisetschläger, K. Gatterer, E. Maier, R. Pecnik, G. Holler and H. Eisenkölbl, The floating water bridge, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 40 (2007) 6112-6114.
• E. C. Fuchs, K. Gatterer, G. Holler and J. Woisetschläger, Dynamics of the floating water bridge, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 41 (2008) 185502.
• T. Cramer, F. Zerbetto and R. García, Molecular mechanism of water bridge buildup: field-induced formation of nanoscale menisci, Langmuir 24 (2008) 6116-6120
• A. Widom, Y.N. Srivastava, J. Swain, S. Sivasubramanian, Maxwell tension supports the water bridge, arXiv:0812.4845v1 [cond-mat.soft];
• E. C. Fuchs, P. Baroni, B. Bitschnau and L. Noirez, Two-dimensional neutron scattering in a floating heavy water bridge, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 43 (2010) 105502.
• E. C. Fuchs, Can a century old experiment reveal hidden properties of water? Water 2 (2010) 381-410.
• R. J. Johnson, Plasma-like behavior of partially-ionized liquids Part I – The floating water bridge, Water 3, (2012) 132-145.
• L. B. Skinner, C. J. Benmore, B. Shyam, J. K. R. Weber and J. B. Parise, Structure of the floating water bridge and water in an electric field, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109 (2012) 16463-16468

And none of it answers's Eagle9's question. A better answer would be explaining that neuron depolarization waves encoded the transmission in pulse trains where it is the frequency of pulses and not their amplitude that conveys the signal. Thus neurons are fairly resistant to both crosstalk in that they don't rely on interference-sensitive analog voltage signals and with reduction of EMF coupling over the case where the axon and not the membrane was the direction of current flow. It's not impossible to imagine some EMF crosstalk might exist, but it is very hard to see where any such crosstalk would be experimentally distinguished from neurotransmitter leaks or parallel transmission from a common source.

http://www.science20.com/florilegium/can_neurons_communicate_distance_electromagnetic_signals
http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/418/1/012083
http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/131218/srep03535/full/srep03535.html

 

[leopold]

leopold
What do you mean under "absorption limits"?
What kind of absorption do you mean?

2 axions side by side cannot affect each other because they are only affected at their tips.
the "impulse" is transmitted by a molecular transfer.
the axion only "absorbs" at its tips.

 

[wellwisher]

I am trying to paint a more realistic picture. Sodium ions in the brain, although they can approximated as isolated ions, will have water molecules bound to them. It is not quite the same as an isolated charge in a vacuum.

The positive charge of the sodium ion becomes redistributed and extended beyond the sodium ion, into its hydration shell. These outer hydrogen become slightly more positive and hydrogen bond tighter with the next layer of water. This redistribution is more than just shifting the placement of the charge.

To see the significance of this, let us start with an oxygen atom. The oxygen atom has 8 protons and 8 electrons. The oxygen atom, although charge neutral, is very reactive and will pull electrons away from almost all other atoms, all the way up to negative 2. If you think in terms of only electro-static charge, the O-2 state of oxygen should not be very stable, and should fly apart due to extra negative charge repulsion.

What keeps it together, as a stable anion, is a charge in motion will create a magnetic field. The two extras electrons, held by the oxygen, will move in such a way that they can create more magnetic attraction for the oxygen atom than charge repulsion. That magnetic attraction requires very specific movement and placement of the electrons, such as opposite spin within orbitals, so there is enough magnetic addition.

In the diagram of hydrated sodium chloride, the situation is more than just dipole charges transposed to the new outer surface. The positive charge of the sodium has to shared the electrons of oxygen, which also need to maintain magnetic stability. In the drawing, although sodium is +1, it shows electrons being shared from 6 oxygen, which should fly apart if not for magnetic within bonding orbitals.

 

[Eagle9]

rpenner

And none of it answers's Eagle9's question. A better answer would be explaining that neuron depolarization waves encoded the transmission in pulse trains where it is the frequency of pulses and not their amplitude that conveys the signal. Thus neurons are fairly resistant to both crosstalk in that they don't rely on interference-sensitive analog voltage signals and with reduction of EMF coupling over the case where the axon and not the membrane was the direction of current flow. It's not impossible to imagine some EMF crosstalk might exist, but it is very hard to see where any such crosstalk would be experimentally distinguished from neurotransmitter leaks or parallel transmission from a common source.

leopold

2 axions side by side cannot affect each other because they are only affected at their tips.

Ok, so we can conclude that variable distance between pairs of neurons does not substantially affect brain’s performance, right?

wellwisher
It is interesting; however it does not directly concern to my question.

 

[rednyellow]

This is a hard question to answer and I am not sure anyone really knows. There is a theory called CEMI theory that proposes the EM field generated by neurons influences consciousness by interacting with voltage-gated ion channels. If this is true, then increasing the distance between neurons would decrease their ability to exert this effect. I do not know if the theory is true though.

Check out: www3 surrey ac uk/qe/cemi htm - insert dots where I have spaces. I can't post direct links because my post count is too low. Check out the third PDF link that is posted near the bottom, Chapter 12 from the book. Page 8 of 20 starts with some detailed explanation of the physical basis of the theory.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Closeness will have exactly the same effect on electricity in neurons as in wires.
If the effect was such that it caused other neurons to reach their potential and fire, then it would be a cause of disease.

If you search google carefully, you may find that such diseases exist.
Caused by, possibly, a breakdown of the neurons' protective coating or a low potential in some neurons.

Misfiring, with a different pathology, occurs in epilepsy, causing seizures.

A seizure occurs when the normal electrical balance in the brain is lost. The brain's nerve cells misfire: they either fire when they shouldn't or don't fire when they should. The result is a sudden, brief, uncontrolled burst of abnormal electrical activity in the brain. Seizures are the physical effects of such unusual bursts of electrical energy in the brain.
http://www.epilepsymatters.com/english/faqexplaining.html

 

[rpenner]

That's a layman's discussion. A medical discussion of seizures indicates that there is a biochemical basis for neuron excitability which is the cause of the burst of activity which can spread by saturation of the network, not electromagnetism.

Seizure propagation, the process by which a partial seizure spreads within the brain, occurs when there is sufficient activation to recruit surrounding neurons. This leads to a loss of surround inhibition and spread of seizure activity into contiguous areas via local cortical connections, and to more distant areas via long association pathways such as the corpus callosum.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2510/​

 

[Eagle9]

rednyellow

This is a hard question to answer and I am not sure anyone really knows.

I agree with you, however is not it possible to take two pairs of neurons (not necessary from human’s brain, they can be taken from monkey’s one) and what will happen if we change distance between them?

There is a theory called CEMI theory that proposes the EM field generated by neurons influences consciousness by interacting with voltage-gated ion channels. If this is true, then increasing the distance between neurons would decrease their ability to exert this effect. I do not know if the theory is true though.

It should be relatively easy to check it: what do we know about Potassium-Sodium channels? Are their performance subjected to outer electric field? If yes then variable distance between pair of neurons will change brain’s overall performance.

Check out: www3 surrey ac uk/qe/cemi htm - insert dots where I have spaces. I can't post direct links because my post count is too low. Check out the third PDF link that is posted near the bottom, Chapter 12 from the book. Page 8 of 20 starts with some detailed explanation of the physical basis of the theory.

Thanks, I will read it as soon as I have free time.

Captain Kremmen

Closeness will have exactly the same effect on electricity in neurons as in wires.

Yes, I think the same



rpenner

That's a layman's discussion. A medical discussion of seizures indicates that there is a biochemical basis for neuron excitability which is the cause of the burst of activity which can spread by saturation of the network, not electromagnetism.
Seizure propagation, the process by which a partial seizure spreads within the brain, occurs when there is sufficient activation to recruit surrounding neurons. This leads to a loss of surround inhibition and spread of seizure activity into contiguous areas via local cortical connections, and to more distant areas via long association pathways such as the corpus callosum.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2510/

Captain Kremmen

If the effect was such that it caused other neurons to reach their potential and fire, then it would be a cause of disease.

If you search google carefully, you may find that such diseases exist.
Caused by, possibly, a breakdown of the neurons' protective coating or a low potential in some neurons.

Misfiring, with a different pathology, occurs in epilepsy, causing seizures.

A seizure occurs when the normal electrical balance in the brain is lost. The brain's nerve cells misfire: they either fire when they shouldn't or don't fire when they should. The result is a sudden, brief, uncontrolled burst of abnormal electrical activity in the brain. Seizures are the physical effects of such unusual bursts of electrical energy in the brain.
http://www.epilepsymatters.com/engli...xplaining.html

Thanks