Theory – Neuron
Figure 1. Crystal set radio.
A simple form of an electrical radio, so-called crystal set, consists of a diode, a capacitor and a coil as an antenna. The organically developed counterparts for those components are the basic building blocks of organic brains, also. I suggest that a neuron is a microscopic radio.
Generally, an antenna acts simultaneously as a receiver and a sender, likewise, a neuron is also a transceiver. Thus brain functions as billions of microscopic radio transceivers. They broadcast and re-broadcast the programme they are receiving from the senses and other neurons. On a functional level, radio transceiver is an equivalent circuit for a neuron. Dendrites take the role of a fractal antenna and are thus capable of receiving and radiating a large range of frequencies.
break this theory 
More info about fractal antennas.
Tomi Itkonen
September 2, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Nerves are not wires!!! They don’t transmit/receive frequencies! They transmit/receive chemicals and impulses! 🙂
Neil
July 17, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Are you sure? 😉
“Neurotransmission is an electrical movement within synapses caused by a propagation of nerve impulses.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotransmission
“According to Maxwell’s equations, a spatially-varying electric field generates a time-varying magnetic field and vice versa.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation
Tomi Itkonen
February 22, 2010 at 12:13 am
Neuron
Tomi Itkonen
February 22, 2010 at 6:56 pm
Hodgkin–Huxley model
Tomi Itkonen
February 22, 2010 at 7:53 pm
Yes, I’m sure.
Although I can see how Wikipedia would lead you astray. It’s also clear how nature itself is a bit confusing, because it would make SO MUCH SENSE for nerves to be like wires, because they have to much in common. Alas, they’re not the same thing. I’ve explained elsewhere the difference, and won’t go into it too much again.
Look carefully at the brilliant Hodgkin-Huxley model. “The Hodgkin–Huxley model is a scientific model that describes how action potentials in neurons are initiated and propagated” The key word here is “action potentials.” In this case, it means a shift in the electrical potential (IE voltage gradient) of the cell while it’s acting.
“Neurotransmission is an electrical movement within synapses caused by a propagation of nerve impulses.” Correct. However, this does NOT say: “Neurotransmission is the movement of electrons through neurons.”
Remember, there’s two ways that electricity can move — rather two kinds of particles that are electrical. Electrons themselves, which travel through things like copper wire, and electrical ions — more massive particles which carry a charge. The movement in neurotransmssion involves Ions and not electrons directly. Furthermore, the electrons don’t move down the length of the cell they move in and out of the cell on a very small scale. This causes a chain reaction of ion exchange which travels down the cell body. Eventually this leads to ionic exchange happening at the synapse, which stimulates the release of a neurotransmitter. So instead of thinking as the electrical component of a nervous impulse LIKE the electrical signal through a wire, instead think of it like a wave of high pressure travelling through a standing water pipe. The medium (electricty) barely moves, but the signal moves quite fast. I don’t know if that was clear, probably not. There’s a reason I don’t teach.
This is the most compact explanation I could find:
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/synaptic/basics/basics-2.html
“This phenomenon is generated through the flow of positively charged ions ACROSS THE NEURONAL MEMBRANE.”
Read the whole page, it’s not that long and will be very enlightening!
Neil
February 22, 2010 at 11:49 pm
Hi Tomi,
I’m interested in this theory. Here is a theory to support the idea that also support’s Neil’s points…
Jonathan
Cemi theory
The starting point for McFadden and Pockett’s theory is the fact that every time a neuron fires to generate an action potential, and a postsynaptic potential in the next neuron down the line, it also generates a disturbance in the surrounding electromagnetic field. McFadden has proposed that the brain’s electromagnetic field creates a representation of the information in the neurons. Studies undertaken towards the end of the 20th century are argued to have shown that conscious experience correlates not with the number of neurons firing, but with the synchrony of that firing.[9] McFadden views the brain’s electromagnetic field as arising from the induced EM field of neurons. The synchronous firing of neurons is, in this theory, argued to amplify the influence of the brain’s EM field fluctuations to a much greater extent than would be possible with the unsynchronized firing of neurons.
McFadden thinks that the EM field could influence the brain in a number of ways. Redistribution of ions could modulate neuronal activity, given that voltage-gated ion channels are a key element in the progress of axon spikes. Neuronal firing is argued to be sensitive to the variation of as little as one millivolt across the cell membrane, or the involvement of a single extra ion channel. Transcranial magnetic stimulation is similarly argued to have demonstrated that weak EM fields can influence brain activity.[citation needed]
McFadden proposes that the digital information from neurons is integrated to form a conscious electromagnetic information (cemi) field in the brain. Consciousness is suggested to be the component of this field that is transmitted back to neurons, and communicates its state externally. Thoughts are viewed as electromagnetic representations of neuronal information, and the experience of free will in our choice of actions is argued to be our subjective experience of the cemi field acting on our neurons.
McFadden’s view of freewill is deterministic. Neurons generate patterns in the EM field, which in turn modulate the firing of particular neurons. There is only conscious agency in the sense that the field or its download to neurons is conscious, but the processes of the brain themselves are driven by deterministic electromagnetic interactions. The feel of subjective experience or qualia corresponds to a particular configuration of the cemi field. This field representation is in this theory argued to integrate parts into a whole that has meaning, so a face is not seen as a random collection of features, but as somebody’s face. The integration of information in the field is also suggested to resolve the binding/combination problem.
Susan Pockett[10] has advanced a theory, which has a similar physical basis to McFadden’s, with consciousness seen as identical to certain spatiotemporal patterns of the EM field. However, whereas McFadden argues that his deterministic interpretation of the EM field is not out-of-line with mainstream thinking, Pockett suggests that the EM field comprises a universal consciousness that experiences the sensations, perceptions, thoughts and emotions of every conscious being in the universe. However, while McFadden thinks that the field is causal for actions, albeit deterministically, Pockett does not see the field as causal for our actions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness
Jonathan Pugh
April 23, 2012 at 5:20 pm