- #36
somasimple
Gold Member
- 766
- 5
I'm preparing a movie that shows the discontinuity.
The movie will be based upon the strict facts.
The movie will be based upon the strict facts.
atyy said:The "event" that you define to travel in the internode would correspond roughly to a fixed "phase" of the AP. Because the AP is changing shape and decaying in the internode, and also because a passive cable has no traveling wave solutions, the "phase" of an AP in the internode in cable theory can only be indirectly defined.
NO! Violation of light speed, infinite energy => IMPOSSIBLE.Strictly speaking electromagnetic signals propagate at a finite speed and carry momentum, but all of circuit theory is based on the "small circuit" assumption. This is essentially the assumption that the size of the circuit is much smaller than one wavelength of the frequencies that will be used. Under that assumption the electrical signal can propagate instantaneously, or in other words for small enough circuits or low enough frequencies the speed of light is treated as infinite. Here we are talking about frequencies of a few kHz or less and distances of a few mm, so the assumption is very reasonable.
If that is your position then the remainder of the discussion is pointless. You are rejecting all of circuit theory and therefore HH and cable theory as well since both use circuit theory. If you don't understand the difference between violating the laws of physics and taking a reasonable approximation to an appropriate limiting case, then you will need to do a full general relativistic and quantum mechanical treatment of the subject.somasimple said:It seems silly to violate the laws of Physics at any scale because it may provoke reasonably mistakes and false conclusions.
Actually, no, according to you a computer violates the laws of physics. Your computer, telephone, light bulbs, and every other electronic gadget you have was designed using the circuit theory that you reject, including the small circuit approximation that you claim violates the laws of physics rather than being a reasonable limiting case.somasimple said:A computer works at the nano second scale and respects physics.
You reject the facts and your theory, Dalespam! That is a pity!Atyy said:Because the AP is changing shape and decaying in the internode
A so little argument. I'm working with a simulator that help to create computer and used all around the world in electronics...DaleSpam said:Actually, no, according to you a computer violates the laws of physics. Your computer, telephone, light bulbs, and every other electronic gadget you have was designed using the circuit theory that you reject, including the small circuit approximation that you claim violates the laws of physics rather than being a reasonable limiting case.
This statement should be corrected to "Then you must have one and only one electric value per time value at any particular spatial position".somasimple said:[*]An electric signal is temporal. Then you must have one and only one electric value per time value.
somasimple said:Does an axon myelinated or not follow strictly these laws?
somasimple said:How can you observe such a decay or phase shift within an event that has a null duration?
somasimple said:Unfortunately I have some other "electrical" objections because a passive component is bidirectional.
I'll dig these points but not aware, actually, of such a discussion.atty said:Do Huxley and Stämpfli model and discuss these points? If they do, what are their solutions? Are their solutions in accord with the laws of physics? Are their solutions reasonable?
Do you even realize that the software you are using is entirely based on circuit theory and the small circuit assumption that you so emphatically and unreasonably reject? Your use of it seems rather self-contradictory since you believe the following about circuit theory:somasimple said:I'm working with a simulator that help to create computer and used all around the world in electronics...
http://www.spectrum-soft.com/index.shtm
http://www.spectrum-soft.com/demo/schemati.shtm
somasimple said:NO! Violation of light speed, infinite energy => IMPOSSIBLE.
Furthermore, R4, a discussion of linear passive cable theory for neurons, is a chapter entitled "subthreshold membrane phenomena", and therefore explicitly excludes APs. The reason AP length can be greater than the passive space constant is that the HH model includes passive and active elements, with no purely passive patch in the unmyelinated axon. R2 indicates this schematically with active Na+ channels distributed continuously along the entire axon length.So in fact, the linear passive cable equation is NOT the standard model for AP propagation in unmyelinated axons and somasimple is absolutely correct on that point!
I do not understand why you insist that way?DaleSpam said:Do you even realize that the software you are using is entirely based on circuit theory and the small circuit assumption that you so emphatically and unreasonably reject? Your use of it seems rather self-contradictory since you believe the following about circuit theory:
I do not need Quantum Physics. Just basic laws of Physics. Some truth is located just in front of your nose.DaleSpam said:Based on your statements here and in other threads your ultimate goal should probably be a full quantum-mechanical treatment of the action potential. If done well, such work would undoubtedly be published since it would be interesting.
The paper data was collected with normal and desheated axons.Atyy said:Finally, I note that somasimple's queries are not arcane, but pertain to multiple sclerosis, a disease of myelination.
Yes you do, otherwise you would be illogical or inconsistent. Circuit theory is a reasonable approximation of classical physics as applied to small circuits, but classical physics is a reasonable approximation of quantum mechanics as applied to macroscopic objects. Since you believe that such approximations are wrong "at any scale because it may provoke reasonably mistakes and false conclusions" then you must logically avoid them. It is irrational to accept one reasonable approximation and reject another reasonable approximation.somasimple said:I do not need Quantum Physics. Just basic laws of Physics.
Let's resolve the more fundamental difference about the validity of circuit theory first before we get into a detailed dispute of values for capacitances and resistances. It doesn't even make sense to argue about parameters to a model if we can't agree on the validity of the model itself.somasimple said:Give me some values? (That is the third time I ask).