A Modified Equation for Neural Conductance and Resonance

                                                                             M. Robert Showalter

                                                                             University of Wisconsin, Madison

A modified equation, the S-K equation, fits data that the current neural conduction equation, the K-R equation, does not. The S-K equation is a modified Heaviside equation, based on a new interpretation of cross terms. Elements of neural anatomy and function are reviewed to put the S-K equation into context. The fit between S-K and resonance-like neural data is then shown.


Recently, a Japanese television cartoon broadcast bright and repetitive T.V. screen flashes. Many hundreds of children and adults who saw the cartoon had epileptic seizures that resulted in hospital visits⁽¹⁾. More than ten thousand children, and many adults, seem to have been affected⁽²⁾. The cartoon makers accidentally repeated experiments that are discussed below⁽³⁾. None of the children who watched the cartoon seems to have been permanently hurt. Even so, this event underscored again the need to reconsider the differential equation now used to describe passive neural conduction.

For more than thirty years, people have noticed that neurons acting together in brains seem to have enormous inductance^{(4) (5)}. Even so, the equation now used to model these neurons, the Kelvin-Rall (K-R) equation, has no inductance.

                           (x is position on the conductor line, v is voltage, i is current, R, C and G are
                             resistance, capacitance, and membrane leakage conductance, per unit length.)

The K-R equation at neural scales involves very large dissipation, more than is consistent with observations. Another difficulty is phase distortion. In K-R, velocity of propagation, v_kr, is

                                                     (frequency in radians/sec)

A complicated signal will include many frequency components. Each will propagate at a different speed under K-R. This will smear out the shape of the signal as it moves down the line. Any periodic waveform propagating down a K-R line with neural values of R and C comes to resemble a sine wave. Any such waveform is also rapidly attenuated. I have not been able to find or model any useful information processing with K-R, nor have I been able to model the channel amplified action potentials described below.

Reasons to doubt K-R empirically have been discussed for decades, and have been accumulating⁽⁶⁾

. Perhaps because of difficulties with K-R, neurophysiology is in a divided state. The part of neurophysiology and neural medicine that can be connected to biochemistry and genetics is rapidly advancing, and has many impressive achievements that accumulate year by year. On the other hand, the part of neurophysiology and neural medicine that depends on an understanding of neural electricity (the part that depends on K-R) is primitive, with little progress to show for years of hard effort.

K-R has never fit data on brain scale neurons well. However, K-R has been accepted because it has seemed to be based on a "mathematically unquestionable"derivation⁽⁷⁾. Biologists have felt that they could not question a "mathematically exact and unquestionable" derivation, even in the face of data that made that derivation seem impossible. For this reason, a decisive issue in neurobiology hinges on an issue of mathematics.

The K-R derivation is thought to rest on an "inescapable" assumption about mathematical representation. This "inescapable" assumption stands on tradition alone, has no provable basis from axioms, and fails some consistency tests. Based on another assumption, which is also unprovable but that is consistent (Appendix 2), a new transmission equation with large effective inductance is derived. Let's call the equation based on the new assumption the Showalter-Kline (S-K) equation after myself and Professor Stephen J. Kline, of Stanford, who worked with me on the derivation of this equation and its justification for many years before his death.

Numerical parts of R, L, G, and C are denoted by subscripts. The dimensions of the quantity are the dimensions (voltage, v; time, t; charge, Q; and distance along the line, x) in a compatible unit system (MKS).

The S-K equation is the standard electrical engineering transmission equation, the Heaviside equation⁽⁸⁾, with the hatted values of resistance, inductance, membrane conductance, and capacitance substituted for the usual ones. For the values of R, L, G, and C that are common in engineering experience (that correspond to wires), numerical predictions of S-K are indistinguishable from the predictions of the Heaviside equation. For the very different values of R, L, G, and C that apply to neurons, the effective inductance of S-K can be 10¹⁵ or more larger than the Heaviside equation predicts. For emphasis, the effective inductance of S-K can be 10,000,000,000,000,000 : 1 or more larger than K-R predicts. S-K fits much neural data well. Let's review what a neuron is, and then review some interesting data that motivates the S-K equation. We'll then trace through S-K's derivation, and show how that derivation differs from the derivation of K-R. Then the very good fit between neural data and S-K will be illustrated.

WHAT A NEURON IS:

Figs. 1a, 1b, and 1c (the left, upper right, and lower right pictures in the image below) show an important and characteristic kind of neuron, the pyramidal cell⁽⁹⁾. There are billions of pyramidal cells in human brain. The lines shown are membrane tubes filled with an ionic, conductive fluid. The neuron is surrounded with another ionic fluid, with different ionic concentrations. The membrane is filled with very many channels of many kinds. Channels are special proteins that act as molecular scale valves. The channels open or close "pores" across the membrane. These pores are permeable paths within the detailed twists of the molecular structures of the channels. The pores change shape as a function of voltage or the binding or unbinding of a messenger molecule to some part of the channel protein structure, and open and close as they do so. Many channel pores are selective for particular ions.

This Fig. 1a cell has one rather straight neural line called an axon. The other lines are dendrites. The axon propagates "action potentials," signals in the form of sharp voltage trajectories. The voltage trajectories are driven by ionic changes caused by a rather complicated pattern of opening and closing of membrane channels. The action potential waveform has many frequency components, but travels at a set speed characteristic of the axon in place. Under K-R there is no way to propagate the coherent action potential waveforms observed, even with uniform channel populations boosting the wave. Nor are channel distributions uniform. Zecevic⁽¹⁰⁾ showed heterogeneous and lumpy channel distributions in axons. Those axons showed standard action potentials.

Fig. 1c

Fig. 1b

Figure 1a

The pyramidal neuron of Fig. 1a has many dendrites. Until a few years ago, dendrites were thought to be passive conductors, governed by the K-R conduction equation without action potentials or other active channel amplification . According to calculations using K-R, attenuation along the length of dendrites seemed so great that signals from the ends of dendrites could have little or no effect on the rest of the neuron. Now we know that this simple picture is wrong. Signals in dendrites can propagate with low distortion and much lower attenuation than K-R predicts^{(11) (12)}.

K-R also predicts that individual neurons are slower than we know they are. From resistance measurements, K-R predicts (1/e) time constants of 20-100 msec or more for retinal, olfactory, and other cells^{(13) (14)}. 1 millisecond time constants are about the fastest the K-R model will generate for any single cell. This is too slow. People discriminate sounds less than .020 msec apart, and do so through neural pathways involving many neurons. Bats discriminate sound waves less than .0005 millisecond apart⁽¹⁵⁾.

According to K-R, conduction speeds are so fast that neurons may be thought of as a single capacitance. Whole neurons might be approximated by leaky spheres, inefficient surge tanks for charge differentials. No clear information processing pattern seems to correspond to this.

Some of the details of the neural structure, shown in Figs 1b and 1c, make that simple interpretation especially surprising. Fig 1a is an enlarged section of the main dendrite of sector II of Fig 1a, at a large enough scale so that the dendritic spines can be made out. A neuron like the one shown will have thousands of spines. Most or all of these spines mount synapses (chemically mediated connections) to other neurons. The spines are diversely shaped.

Under K-R, no single synapse can fire the axon - a sort of "voting" must occur. An enormous number of combinations of connections would yield the same on-off vote. The system seems built to smear out detail rather than record it or process it. No way to think of anatomically correct neurons as the detailed logical processors we know they must be has been proposed under K-R.

K-R cannot explain the COORDINATED action of many neurons seen in brains. Large populations of neurons in the brain fire in synchrony. The coordinated firing occurs over such long distances that the synchrony observed cannot be due to conduction. Even so, coordinated firing of neurons over (apparently impossibly large) distances seems to be associated with logically coordinated function^{(16) (17) (18)} of the neurons involved. Oscillation patterns shift as logic shifts. The epileptic diseases involve especially intense, uncontrolled, rapidly varying synchronies. The diverse and rapidly changing synchronies observed are beyond the capacity of conductive networks that have been proposed⁽¹⁹⁾ under ideal theoretical circumstances. By the logic of K-R, information flows only move through connected axons and dendrites. These connected lines have a wide range of conduction speeds, and the lines trace more or less convoluted paths. Different paths have different numbers of synapses with different synaptic lags. Such a system seems designed to produce dispersion, not the synchrony that is seen.

According to K-R the logical processing brains do seems impossible. The coordinated waveforms brain show seem impossible. Under K-R, neurons are grossly overdamped, phase distortion is prohibitively large, and neurons simply do not resemble the highly evolved logic processing devices that we know they must be. Under S-K, these same neurons seem exquisitely adapted to logic processing via the combination of conduction and switched resonance. Let's look at resonance-like responses in brain that the S-K equations fit well.

RESONANCE-LIKE RESPONSES IN BRAIN:

Last December, a popular Japanese television cartoon broadcast bright and repetitive T.V. screen flashes. According to The New York Times, many hundreds of children and adults who saw the cartoon had epileptic seizures that resulted in hospital visits throughout Japan. More than ten thousand children, and many adults, seem to have been affected⁽²⁰⁾. Tests since have shown that the flashing TV screen stimulus does produce seizures and other ill effects in many people.

The flashing TV screen the cartoon employed was the same stimulus used by electrophysiologist David Regan a decade ago. Reagan studied brain responses to these flashes (and other repetitive stimuli) using very sensitive zoom FFT electroencephalogram (EEG) and magnetoencephalogram (MEG) tests. EEG records voltage fluctuations of electrodes on scalp, face and head. MEG records fluctuations in the head's magnetic field.     Fig 2⁽²¹⁾ shows some of Regan's EEG measurements using his zoom FFT technique.    The behavior shown is typical of that measured, magnetically or electrically, in response to many kinds of repetitively presented stimuli (light, touch, sound, etc.) For Fig 2 the stimulus was a TV screen flashing at two superimposed frequencies F₁ and F₂.

Fig. 2

The data show sharp peaks at sums and differences of excitation frequency. This kind of signature characterizes resonant systems, with very low damping, that include many passive resonators. It is "as if" the brain is resonating. Resonance would require inductance that the K-R equation lacks, but is consistent with S-K.

Fig 2 shows results that Reagan repeated often, for several kinds of stimuli, for both EEG and MEG. In all these tests, Regan was measuring scalp electrodes in EEG, or whole brain magnetic fields in MEG. He was measuring activity integrated over substantial volumes of brain. Large volumes of brain, including at least millions of electrically coordinated cells, had to be "resonating."

In tests similar to those of Fig. 2, Regan measured peak bandwidths narrower than .0019 Hz.    Bandwidths of the peaks measured in Fig 2 may have been as sharp as this. These are astonishingly sharp peaks, orders of magnitude too sharp to be accounted for by membrane channel activity. The peaks are so sharp that elements "resonating" together must have been coupled with very small lags. The coupling Reagan measured is much sharper than any possible if there were significant conduction time lags between reacting elements. This rules out coupling of elements by conduction along neural lines. According to K-R, conduction is the only source of coupling between neurons.

Reagan's results have recently been seen again, under less controlled circumstances. We now know that such repetitive stimuli, delivered at higher intensity than Reagan used for a few seconds, can evoke epileptic seizures in populations of children and adults.

Regan's data shows electrical coordination over volumes of brain with special clarity. Even so, electrical coordination of large volumes of brain may be THE central result of brain electrophysiology, and has been known for a century.

Epilepsy resembles electrical instability of the brain in resonance. That is medically interesting. Another reason to be interested in brain resonance is information processing. If one follows analogies between human engineering and brain, resonance may also be connected with how the brain processes information. Resonance is logically interesting. Enormous resonant magnifications of tightly selected signals are possible. In this sense, resonant systems can function as highly selective amplifiers. This fact is a foundation of communication technology. Radio and television offer familiar examples of resonant selectivity. Radio and television receivers exist in an electromagnetic field consisting of a bewildering and undescribable variety of electromagnetic fluctuations. Reception occurs because the resonant receiver is selective for a specific frequency at a high degree of phase coherence. Signals off frequency are not significantly detected, and "signals" of random phase that are on frequency cancel rather than magnify in resonance. Radar receivers also operate on the principle of resonance. Other examples are our telephone system and cable television system, each organized so that a multiplicity of different signals can be carried in physically mixed form over the same conduits. These "mixed" signals can be separated and detected with negligible crosstalk by resonant means. Based on S-K and anatomy I've speculated that high sensitivity passive resonant brain elements might work as compact passive memory elements, consuming no energy until excited. Membrane channel means to switch resonant sensitivity on and off would provide much logical capacity. Reagan's measurements did not measure any such information processing in brain, but perhaps he did measure resonant responses consistent with such an information processing arrangement of brain.

Many neurophysiologists have thought about these matters for years. Few seem to doubt that inductance would explain a great deal "if only the inductance was there.⁽²²⁾" Nonetheless, the K-R equation is justified by "unquestionable mathematics." (The derivation was carefully done, under the aegis of the N.I.H., in response to questions about brain inductance. No plausible source of brain inductance was then found.) K-R was also derived in careful analogy with electrical engineering experience. According to K-R, neural line inductance is just the same electromagnetic inductance any conducting line would have. In comparison to the huge values of resistance and capacitance that neural lines have, this inductance is negligible, so K-R is written without inductance.

Matching anatomy, one can choose inductances that would produce the behavior Reagan measured by resonant action. The inductances needed are immense - more than 10¹⁶ times electromagnetic inductance. The S-K equations have these large effective inductances at neural scales with neural values of R, L, G, and C, and also have other characteristics needed to account for much neurophysiological data, including Regan's. S-K fits the other data Kline and I have looked at, as well. S-K is consistent with the electrical engineering data that we've checked, and is the same as the standard Heaviside equation for usual wire values of R, L, G and C.

DERIVATION OF THE S-K AND K-R EQUATIONS:

Both the K-R equation and the S-K equation derive from the same basic physical model. The derivation of equations from the model differs in two ways:

                          The S-K derivation writes down crossterms that are not usually written, that the K-R                           derivation does not treat.

                           The S-K derivation interprets these crossterms using a new assumption that defines                            them consistently at finite scale, before taking the limit of these crossterms.

As a result of these differences, S-K includes some physical crosseffect terms that K-R lacks, including an effective inductance term the right size to account for neurophysiological data.

The conductance equations that apply to a line conductor, such as a wire, are the Heaviside equations, standard in electrical engineering:

                         v is voltage, i is current, x is distance along the line, and R, L, G, C are resistance,                          inductance, membrane conductance, and capacitance respectively, all per unit length.

The Heaviside equation is derived by cross substituting dv/dx and di/dx equations (4) that represent the physical definitions of R, L, G, and C. In Kelvin-Rall, the same cross substitution is done.

It is then noticed that in the neural regime, the Heaviside equation (2) so formed has an electromagnetic inductance that is minuscule compared to R, C, and the changeably valued G. So the terms in L are deleted, and the K-R equation remains:

The K-R equations lack the LC term passive electrical resonance requires. Conduction velocity under K-R goes as the square root of waveform Fourier frequency component. This means that K-R shows large phase distortion - complex waveforms rapidly change shape, spread out, and lose information as they conduct down a line under K-R.

DERIVATION OF S-K.

If equations (4) are exact, then K-R follows. So Kline and I looked again at how these equations were derived from a physical model. We set up equations that corresponded to our physical model at finite scale, including crosseffect terms, that plainly existed at finite scale, but that were not defined in a way that was consistent with the requirements of physical representation. When we defined these crossterms so that they were consistent with physical representation (Appendix 2), the crossterms were finite, and the S-K equation followed.

In a physical model of conduction along a line over an interval, the conduction and voltage equation, set out in terms of the physical laws represented by R, L, G, and C, are each implicitly defined by the other. (Appendix 1) Centering our interval at x, so that our interval goes from x-(delta x)/2 to x+(delta x)/2, we have the following voltage equation (5):

The current change equation (6) is exactly symmetric:

Equation (5) includes i(x+(delta x)/2,t) and its time derivative. i(x+(delta x)/2,t) is defined by equation (6).

Equation (6) includes v(x+(delta x)/2,t) and its time derivative. v(x+(delta x)/2,t) is defined by equation (5).

Equations 5 and 6 each contain the other. Each requires the other for full specification.

If the cross-substitutions implicit in these equations are explicitly made, each of the resulting equations will contain the other in turn. Expression of current, voltage, and their time derivatives at x, the midpoint of the interval, truncates the series at the stage desired.

7 is a voltage difference equation representing three stages of this substitution. (For more details, see Appendix 1.)  The analogous current difference equation would result from swapping of parameters and variables as follows: v-i, R-G, L-C. The length increments (delta x) within the curly brackets of 7 are set out at subscript level to make the eye hesitate. The question "do the numerical values of these increments multiply?" will be raised below.  For a consistent physical representation, they cannot, unless they do so at a numerical value of 1.0 .

Deleting crossproducts that happen to be are too small to consider for neural values of R, L, G, and C, for the numerical value of delta x <= 1 in the curly brackets,    7 reduces to:

the corresponding current equation is:

Suppose we make the following Key Procedural Assumption:

When we derive a finite increment equation from a coupled finite increment physical model, that equation will include terms that represent crosseffects including several physical law operators and several increments in interaction together.

           We have no axiomatic basis for deciding what the proper scale or unit            system for algebraic simplification of these terms should be.

           We know that choice of simplification scale and unit system matters            numerically. Therefore, consistency requires us to specify the scale-unit            system conditions for valid algebraic simplification.

Self-consistent results are obtained if we insist that algebraic simplification be done at a physical scale (of length, area, volume, etc) with a numerical value of 1.0 in the unit system in which algebraic simplification is done.    This physical scale can be as large or small as we choose, since we can also choose any consistent unit system for expressing our measurements. After algebraic simplification (at a numerical scale of unity) the expressions in curly brackets correspond to dimensional constants, analagous to R, L, G, C, etc, and we can convert our calculation to whatever consistent unit system we choose.

For example, the expressions within the curly brackets of equations (7), (8) and (9) are physical interpretations of natural laws that happen to have been "effectively measured" at scale delta x. To compute a natural law coefficient that corresponds to the expression in the curly brackets, and that is valid at any scale, including differential scale, we convert to a consistent measurement unit system where length, delta x, is 1 length unit.    (Or we evaluate a "delta x" of 1 length unit in the measurement unit system we are using.)

With our unit system (or measurement) chosen so that the numerical value of delta x=1, we algebraically simplify the expressions in the curly brackets    That done, we convert back to the unit system of our overall calculation, if we have departed from it.  We have an equation that is arithmetically isomorphic to ordinary algebra, that will not generate false infinitesimals or infinities. The equation we had before  (7,8, or 9) was not arithmetically isomorphic to ordinary algebra, and our false infinities and infinitesimals trace from that.

For interpretation of equations like (7), (8), and (9) at differential scale, the key procedural assumption assumes a convenient form:

When we derive a differential equation (defined at a point) from a coupled finite increment physical model, we must put ALL the variables and increments in our model equation into POINT FORM prior to algebraic simplification.  (Point form is the intensive form of the variables, defined for spatial units as well as R, L, G, C and like entities.)  The point forms of spatial quantities and time (in cm and second units) are:



Differential equations so derived, and integrated to a finite scale, correspond to equations evaluated at that finite scale by the rule above. Again, false infinitesimals and false infinities are avoided.

The key procedural assumption set out in finite increment and differential forms above is discussed and justified in much more detail in Appendix 2.    If we proceed according to either the finite or point form of this KEY PROCEDURAL ASSUMPTION (8 and 9) correspond to the following differential equations:

In the more compact hatted notation, these equations can be written

where

The S-K equation is isomorphic to the standard electrical engineering transmission equation (3), and follows if (12 ) and (13 ) are crossubstituted according to the usual Heaviside derivation.

For wires and other familiar engineering conductors, the K-R and S-K equations are identical within the limitations of measurement. But under neural conditions S-K and K-R are very different. Effective inductance in S-K is more than 10¹² times inductance in K-R. S-K fits much data, and predicts two modes of behavior. When G is high (some channels are open) behavior similar to that of the current model is predicted. When G is low, transmission has very low dissipation, and the system is adapted to inductive coupling effects including resonance. Switching between these two modes is sharp. Considering resonance, we'll look at the case where G is negligible. In this case, to be expected when membrane channels are closed, S-K reduces to:

Equations (14) are familiar textbook equations used in the study of the resonance of electrically conductive lines.

A Question of mathematical modeling:

The S-K equation is dimensionally consistent, and seems to fit data.   Many equations used in the sciences have no more foundation than that.   Even so, the derivation of K-R was carefully and publicly done, according to standard conventions. K-R has been accepted for decades in the neurosciences

To question K-R, one must question how implicit crosseffect terms, that must be finite at finite scale, are to be calculated. The S-K derivation sets out these crosseffect terms explicitly, and calculates them according to a new assumption that interprets their symbols differently prior to an algebraic simplification. (The word "assumption" may seem insufficiently rigorous, but is the most rigorous possible under the circumstances. Measurement procedures are beyond the axioms of pure mathematics.   We must assume whatever procedures we adopt, justifying the procedures assumed on the basis of self-consistency and consistency with evidence.   If we claim or ask for "rigorous proof" here, that is simply a mistake.)

Neither the implicit calculation assumption of the K-R derivation nor the explicit calculation assumption of the S-K derivation can be proved from established axioms of abstract mathematics. The assumption used in K-R is the usual one, and the assumption used in S-K is new. Even so, the assumption used in the S-K derivation survives consistency tests that the K-R assumption does not survive. The derivation of S-K is set out in more detail in Appendix 1, and the key assumption behind it is discussed in more detail in Appendix 2.

S-K FITS DATA:

The very numerous spiny cells in brain should behave in a manner that generates the kind of behavior that Regan measured if S-K is assumed. If K-R is assumed, brain resonance cannot occur.

Details of resonance that are important to connecting S-K to anatomy are set out in Appendix 3. Some calculations based on these details are set out below.

Assuming S-K, predicted behavior of brain corresponds to what Regan measured. This is true, so long as the Q's calculated under S-K are higher than the minimum Q's consistent with Regan's data. Regan's setup could have detected no tighter bandwidths (no higher Q's) than he did detect. If the brain Regan measured included resonators with Q's that corresponded to the bandwidths of his measurements, or Q's one thousand times higher, the difference could not be distinguished. Calculated Q's under S-K are amply high enough to account for Regan's data.

We consider Regan's frequencies of 7-46 Hz. Let's say peak bandwidth is no greater than the .0019 Hz Regan measured in another run. We calculate resonant magnification factors, Q's, of at least 3680 to 24,200 for the ensembles that represent frequency peaks. These are very high calculated ensemble Q's. Individual resonator Q's cannot be less, but could be higher still. Regan's measurements give upper bounds on bandwidths, lower bounds on Q's.

There are more than 10¹⁰ neurons in brain, and roughly 10¹³ dendritic spines, many shaped like Fig 3.

In LRC mode, the "spine" of Fig. 3 has a Q that depends on its resonant frequency, shaft inductance, and shaft resistance.

Let's chose "big" and "small" shaft diameters of 1 µ, and .1 µ, interspine medium conductance of 1.1 ohm-meter, and membrane capacitance of .01 farad/m². (In real anatomy, the interaction of membranes makes this capacitance much too high.). We calculate very high Q's, more than two and more than three decades above the constraint inferred from Regan's data.

These Q's are higher than could occur, because the capacitance-reducing effect of glial and neural membranes is neglected.    For the well organized glial membrane-fluid cleft-neural membrane arrangements that surround axons and large dendrites, capacitances (and Q's) would be reduced about 100-fold⁽²³⁾

. That would take the Q for the 1 micron shaft close to the constraint to Regan's data, and would about correspond to the Q of the resonance curve shown in Figs. 4 and 5 below.

Figs. 4 and 5 illustrate calculated equilibrium resonant magnification factors, after long times, versus frequency for a spine. According to S-K, different spines would have higher Q's (tighter bandwidths) or lower Q's (broader bandwidths.) Curve shapes would remain similar. Fig. 5 shows the log of magnification. Magnifications of more than 100 occur over a much broader frequency range than frequency curve bandwidth. The spine resonance is not all-or-nothing, but the curve is nonetheless sharp.

If a spine has a fixed geometry, it will "remember" a particular frequency, passively, and with great sensitivity. If means exist to change spine geometry, that spine might be said to "learn" from "experience". An interesting consequence of membrane geometry- capacitance sensitivity is that small changes in membrane geometry could rapidly change spine resonant frequency. Change might happen in an adaptive way.

The spine models so far have assumed that all channels in the spine are closed. Channel opening would abruptly cut spine Q's from tens of thousands to Q's of approximately 1. This is switching that may play a logical role.

Other logically interesting aspects of S-K and neuroanatomy also exist. See Appendix 4.

Modeling using the S-K equation is consistent with Regan's data. According to S-K, resonant behavior similar to that Reagan observed follows. The brain has about 10¹³ spines. If spine resonant frequencies are widely distributed, and some reasonable fraction of the dendritic spines are in the high Q state, one would expect fixed frequency stimuli, such as Regan supplied, to yield the sort of excitation curves that Regan observed. Coupling of the spines would be via the very rapid conduction of the extracellular medium, not via conduction along dendrites or axons. Excessive stimulation could generate the eplileptiform seizures that occurred in Japan.

The S-K conduction equation theory fits Regan's data and other neuroscience data well. The predictions of S-K theory, including those related to information processing and memory, have seemed plausible to experts, and are discussed in Appendix 4.

The medically and neuroscientifically important distinction between the K-R and S-K equations hinges on the proper derivation of a differential equation from a physical model. See Appendix 2.

*****************************************************************

Dedication: Professor Stephen J. Kline, of Stanford University, author of SIMILITUDE AND APPROXIMATION THEORY⁽²⁴⁾ and one of the great mathematical and experimental fluid mechanicians of this century, was my partner in the work leading up to this paper. We worked together on this for almost ten years, up to his death in November of 1997. Steve's contributions were many and indispensable. Steve thought hard about the problems of physical representation, and was completely clear about the need to find and fix an error at the interface between the representation of coupled physical models at the level of a sketch, and representation by a differential equation.

******************************************************************



Appendices:

Appendix 1: Derivation of crossterms that represent combinations of physical laws for a line conductor of finite length.

Appendix 2: Evaluation of crossterms that represent combinations of physical laws according to consistency arguments.

Appendix 3:  Some background on resonance

Appendix 4:  Web access to some detailed brain modeling, correspondence with NATURE, and some extensive discussion of the work in George Johnson's New York Times web forums.

NOTES:

1. Sheryl WuDunn "TV Cartoon's Flashes send 700 Japanese into Seizures" The New York Times, December 18, 1997.

2. Sheryl WuDunn "Japan TV to Act Against Seizure-Causing Cartoon Flashes" The New York Times, December 20, 1997.

3. Regan, David HUMAN BRAIN ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY: Evoked Potentials and Evoked Magnetic Fields in Science and Medicine Elsevior, 1989.

4. Lieberstein, H.M. Mathematical Biosciences, 1 pp 45-69 (1967)

5. Scott, A.C. Mathematical Biosciences 11, 277-290, (1971).

6. REASONS TO DOUBT THE CURRENT NEURAL CONDUCTION MODEL by M.R. Showalter at http://www.wisc.edu/rshowalt/doubt/ (See also Appendix 4.)

7. Rall, W. "Core conductor theory and cable properties of neurons" HANDBOOK OF PHYSIOLOGY - THE NERVOUS SYSTEM V.1 Ch. 3 Williams and Wilkens, Baltimore, Md. (1977).

8. Stephenson, D.T. "Transmission Lines" McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, 7th ed (1992).

9. Tseng, G.F. and Haberley, L.B. "Deep neurons in piriform cortex. I. Morphology and synaptically evoked responses including a unique high amplitude paired shock facilitation." J. Neurophysiology. 62: p369-385 (1989).

10. Zecevic, D NATURE 381 322-325 (1996).

11. Svoboda, K., Denk W., Klienfeld, D. & Tank, D.W NATURE 385 161-165 (1997).

12. Haag J. & Borst A. NATURE 349 639-641 (1996).

13. Woolf T.B., Shepherd, G.M., & Greer, C.A. J. of Neuroscience, June (1991).

14. Coleman, P.A. & Miller, R.F. J.of Neurophysiology 61, 218-230 (1989).

15. Moss, C.F. & Simmons, J.A. in NEUROETHOLOGICAL STUDIES OF COGNITIVE AND PERCEPTUAL PROCESSES Westview Press, New York, 253 (1996).

16. Gray, C.M., Konig, P, Engel, A.K., & Singer, W. NATURE 338, 334-337 (1989).

17. Whittington M.A., Traub, R.D., & Jefferys, J.G.R.

NATURE 373 612-614 (1995).

18. Schechter, B. SCIENCE 274 339-340 (1996).

19. Traub, R.D., Whittington, M.A., Stanford, I.M., & Jefferys, J.G.

NATURE 383 621-624 (1996).

20. Sheryl WuDunn, op. cit.

21. Regan, David op. cit. , Fig 1.70A , p 106.

22. Rall, op. cit.

23. See Appendix 4: " The Glial membrane-fluid cleft-neural membrane arrangement cuts effective neural capacitance, greatly increasing signal conduction velocity and greatly reducing the energy requirement per action potential. by M.R. Showalter at http://www.wisc.edu/rshowalt/cleft/

24. Kline, S.J. SIMILITUDE AND APPROXIMATION THEORY McGraw-Hill, 1967; Springer-Verlag, 1984.

****************************************************************************************
****************************************************************************************
****************************************************************************************
****************************************************************************************


Appendix 1: Derivation of a finite increment equation from a coupled physical model, showing combined effect terms.

Most mathematical models of physical circumstances start by matching one or more differential equations from a handbook with a physical case. Thereafter, analysis is carried out according to the rules of abstract mathematics. In this usual procedure, the differential equation is not derived from a physical model, but is applied to that model and taken as an operationally perfect or good enough match.

However, the differential equations themselves are sometimes inferred directly from physical models in a step by step way from a sketch-model. This process is called "derivation," and is taught in engineering schools.   

To derive a differential equation from a physical model:

       we construct a finite scale model that sets out the laws and geometry to be represented;

        then we derive (one or more) finite increment equation(s) that map that finite model.

After a finite increment equation that represents our model has been defined, we may pass that finite equation to the infinitesimal limit to yield a differential equation.

Equation definition can take special attention if our finite model includes coupled effects.  In such a case, two equations are implicitly defined in terms of each other.

One of the simplest and most important examples is current change and voltage change along a length of conductive line (such as a wire or a length of neural tube.)  Current drops i are coupled to voltage and voltage drops according to logic like the following:

i over the interval is a function of v at x and x+delta x
     which is a function of i at x and x+delta x
          which is a function of v at x and x+delta x
               which is a function of i at x and x+delta x

                                     and so on

Voltage drops are coupled to current and current drops in the same nested way.

We have to be able to represent the coupled effects that occur correctly at finite scales, before we can take the limit of those terms, at successively smaller finite scales, to the infinitesimal limit.   (Current procedure does not ask for meaningful finite coupled effect terms, and applies "limiting logic" to these undefined terms, which are invariably dismissed as 0's or labelled as infinities.)

Fig. 1 above shows a conducting line that could be neural conductor.

     v = voltage                      i = current
     x = position along the line              alpha= arbitrary length interval
     R = resistance/length                     L=electromagnetic inductance/length
     G= membrane leakage conductance/length               C=capacitance/length

Fig. 1 above shows an arbitrarily chosen length alpha, of arbitrary magnitude, which we will call delta x.

R, L, G, and C are natural law operators (Appendix 2.)   They represent physical laws, and are defined as the ratio of one measurable to another under particular measurement circumstances. The natural law operators, which implicitly represent much measurement detail, are our interface between the detailed measurement procedures of physical reality and abstract equation representations of physical circumstances.  The arithmetical properties of the natural law operators are justified by inductive generalization, not axiomatic proof.  We have no provable reason to think R, L, G, and C have exactly the arithmetical properties and restrictions of numbers.   In the derivation below, we'll operate on terms including the symbols R, L, G, and C in the usual algebraic way, stopping short of algebraically simplifying the terms. We'll not interpret these terms numerically or physically here in appendix 1, leaving that for appendix 2.

To derive line differential equations in dv/dx and di/dx, we first need finite difference equations, (delta v)/(delta x) and (delta i)/(delta x).   For the finite equations, we'll be writing out terms that have usually been understood to exist, but that have been called infinitesimal and neglected.   Let's consider the coupled effects physically.

Voltage drop over delta x depends on current.   Current over length delta x varies if charge carriers are stored or discharged in capacitance over the interval delta x. The capacitive effect will depend on dv/dt. Current over delta x will also be lost from membrane leakage over delta x. That loss will depend on v. Voltage drop depends not only on current, through R, and L, but also depends on interactions between voltage and G and between dv/dt and C.

In an exactly symmetric way

Current drop over delta x depends on voltage. Voltage over length delta x varies with inductive reactance, L di/dt. Voltage over delta x will also be lost from interaction between resistance and current, Ri.   Current drop depends not only on voltage, through G and C, but also depends on interactions between current and R, and between di/dt and L.

The idea that di/dt depends ONLY on G and C neglects effects that act over delta x. The idea that dv/dt depends ONLY on R and L neglects crosseffects over delta x.    (If the effects are finite over finite lengths, they MUST be represented in the differential equations that are integrated to represent these finite lengths.)  Appendix 2.

Let's derive voltage and current equations that include crosseffects. We'll write our voltage and current functions as v(x,t) and i(x,t). We assume homogeneity and symmetry for our conductor. We assume that, for the small lengths of interest, the average voltage (average current) across the interval delta x is the average value of voltage (current) at the endpoints of the interval delta x.

Writing down voltage change as a function of the natural law operators and variables that directly affect voltage, and centering our interval at x, so that our interval goes from x-(delta x)/2 to x+(delta x)/2, we have:

The current change equation is isomorphic:

Note that :

Equation (1) includes i(x+(delta x)/2,t) and its time derivative.    
i(x+(delta x)/2,t)   is defined by equation (2).

Equation (2) includes v(x+(delta x)/2,t) and its time derivative.    
v(x+(delta x)/2,t)   is defined by equation (1).  


Each of these equations requires the other for full specification: each contains the other.

If the cross-substitutions implicit in these equations are explicitly made, each of the resulting equations will also contain the other. So will the next generation of substituted equations, and the next, and so on. This is an endless regress. Each substitution introduces new functions with the argument (x+(delta x)/2), and so there is a continuing need for more substitutions.  To achieve closure, one needs a truncating approximation.  

Expression of current, voltage, and their time derivatives at x, the midpoint of the interval, truncates the series.

A key point of this paper is that we have not been sure of how the arithmetic (and the dimensional or scale limitations) of these symbols have worked.   If we ask

"If N effects represented by distributed parameters interact on or in ONE piece of space, should the numerical value of that piece of space multiply into the expression representing the interaction ONCE or N times?"

the conventional answer is "N times."    But we are not actually sure of this, and the answer that consistency requires is "once."   (See Appendix 2.)    Let's proceed with these substitutions, associating symbols without interpreting them numerically or physically.    

For example

is

which expands algebraically to

These terms would be simpler if voltage averages and derivative averages were taken at the interval midpoint, x, as follows:

How may terms like those of (6) be interpreted, physically and numerically, at finite scale?   In these expressions, two natural law operators are EACH associated with the SAME interval of length.  Do the lengths multiply?  On what authority do we say that the lengths multiply?  Are there restrictions on the scale at which the multiplication can be done?  If the lengths do multiply, what does this represent physically?   Does the multiplication make numerical sense, and is that multiplication consistent with tests the expression must pass?   It turns out that if we apply standard arithmetical rules to these crossterms, we are led to mathematical and physical inconsistencies. (Appendix 2)    We have no axiomatic reason to be surprised by this.

The equation below shows voltage change over an interval of length delta x, divided by the length  delta x to produce a gradient form analogous to a derivative.   Terms derived from three stages of cross substitution are shown.   Symbols are grouped together and algebraically simplified up to the point where the meaning of further algebraic simplification of relations in the dimensional parameters R, L, G, C, and delta x becomes unclear.   Expresssions in curly brackets are NOT YET DEFINED.

The current gradient equation over the same interval is isomorphic to 7 with swapping of v for i, R for G, and L for C.

Whenever coupled physical effects act over an interval of space, combined effect terms are to be expected. Rules for their interpretation must be found. Those rules are beyond the authority of the axioms of pure mathematics, but consistent rules for interpreting these expressions can be inferred from mathematical experiments. (Appendix 2)

Combined effect terms such as those shown here are seldom derived, because they are thought to always vanish in the limit.    That assumption embodies an assumption about scale or numerical limits on the arithmetic involved.

However, expressions such as those in the curly brackets of (7), interpreted in a consistent way, are finite, and yield finite terms in differential equations. Often such combined effect terms are negligible, but sometimes they are important.

***************************************************************************************
***************************************************************************************
***************************************************************************************
***************************************************************************************


Appendix 2: REPRESENTING PHYSICAL MODELS AS ABSTRACT EQUATIONS: PROCEDURES INFERRED FROM EXPERIMENTAL MATHEMATICS

Procedures for representing physical models in equation form cannot be determined from our axioms because our axioms are limited to abstract domains. But representation procedures can be examined by means of experimental mathematics. Valid representation procedures must be consistent with computational consistency tests. Current techniques for calculating the interaction of several natural laws over a spatial increment fail tests that valid representation requires, and are ruled out. A consistent technique is proposed. According to the proposed technique, terms in some equations that have been thought to be infinitesimal are finite. Implications in neural medicine and other fields that deal with the brain appear to be large (see appendix 4).

Some seem to feel that mathematics is axiomatic construction and nothing else, but that sometimes, nevertheless, that axiomatic construction can be mapped to some useful work. The jump from the abstract to the concrete is held to occur by some discontinuous and unexplained process. A smoother, better explained transition between the abstract and concrete seems desirable. Mathematics already interfaces with experimental usages, and has long been pushed toward experimental approaches by the computer⁽¹⁾.

G.C. Chaitin has shown that many things in pure math are "true for no (axiomatically provable) reason at all⁽²⁾." Chaitin suggests that where existing axioms don't apply, new organizing assumptions may be considered, and may be useful. K. Godel advocated experimental approaches in mathematics on similar grounds⁽³⁾. Even the interior of mathematics has experimental aspects. Some degree of experimental math seems justified and useful even in number theory.

The interface between abstract mathematics and the representation of physical circumstances can be investigated experimentally, as well.

There may be many reasons to investigate this interface between abstraction and concrete representation. My main one is concern about the correct form of the neural transmission equation. Medically important differences in neural line inductance, that can be 10¹⁸:1 or larger, hinge on a question that is beyond the jurisdiction of the axioms of pure mathematics. That question can be clarified, and perhaps entirely resolved, with experimental mathematics.

Conclusions based on mathematical experiments always lack the certainty of an axiomatic basis. Even so, some much-tested conclusions may be useful, and using them as new assumptions can permit useful logical work that would not be possible otherwise. Experiment-based inferences (assumptions) are now widely used in cryptography and other computer-based fields.

Results of mathematical experiments cannot prove with axiomatic certainty, but can disprove. When mathematical experiments show counterexamples to an assumption, that assumption has been ruled out.

Even within pure math, where axioms reign, there are good reasons to use experimental approaches to test and organize ideas that we may wish to use, where our axioms cannot be brought to bear. This supplements axiomatic usages without violating them.

In mathematical representation of PHYSICAL circumstances, set out in terms of experimentally derived physical laws, we are using mathematical techniques beyond where the axioms of pure math apply. If we are to proceed at all, we must use experimental mathematics.

Here is the logic that experimental work has:

          E1. In experimental work, candidate assumptions are somehow recognized or guessed.
          (No testing can happen before we focus on something to test.)

          E2. Candidate assumptions are tested against evidence. So long as an assumption
          survives all tests, it is used (with some wariness) as a provisional assumption.

          E3. Assumptions that evidence contradicts are rejected, or the assumptions are modified
          so that they do fit evidence.

If we use these experimental approaches we may sometimes usefully organize, extend, and focus our knowledge beyond the realm of our axioms.     If we do not use these approaches, we cannot go beyond our axioms at all.

When we mathematically represent a physical circumstance, we are beyond our axioms. Let's call that representation process "p-m representation" for "representation from physical model to mathematical model."

(We'll assume that a workable p-m representation can be reversed in a m-p representation so that we can start with a physical model, convert it into a statement in abstract mathematics, operate on the abstract mathematical statement, and then relate that statement in abstract mathematics back to the physical model without misinterpreting or losing information of interest to us.)

We have NO axioms for p-m representation or m-p representation. We must determine the representation procedures of valid p-m representation and m-p representation on EXPERIMENTAL grounds.

Here is the p-m representation problem in more detail. When we derive an equation representing a physical model, reasoning from a sketch and other physical information, we write down symbols and terms representing physical effects. We may write down several stages of symbolic representation before we settle on our "finished" abstract equation.   As we write our symbols, we implicitly face the following question:

       Question: WHEN can we logically forget that the symbols we write represent a physical model?        WHEN can we treat the equation we've derived from a physical model as a context-free abstract         entity, subject only to the exact rules of pure mathematics?

We can never do so on the basis of rigorous, certain, clearly applicable axioms. There are no such axioms. We cannot avoid making an implicit assumption that says

     "THIS equation can be treated as a valid abstract equation, without further concern about its
     context or origin, because it seems right to do so, or because it is traditional to do so.
     We have made the jump from concrete representation to valid abstraction HERE."

This assumption may happen to be right in the case at hand. But the assumption about p-m representation is not provably true from the axioms and procedures of pure mathematics.    People go ahead and make these sorts of assumptions as they work. They cannot avoid doing so. Right or wrong, they are making "experimentally based" assumptions in their representation-derivations. People have made these implicit assumptions without recognizing the essentially experimental nature of their proceedings. It is better that this experimental nature be recognized, so that consistency checks can be applied to the unprovable steps. Any inconsistencies involved with these implicit steps may then be identified.

For any particular case of p-m representation, decisions are being made in a context of EXPERIMENTAL MATH at the interface between abstract math and physical circumstances. If a counterexample or inconsistency pertaining to a p-m representation usage is found, that is an extra-axiomatic circumstance. The extra-axiomatic usages that are failing as p-m representative tools should be modified so that they pass the consistency tests right p-m representation takes. Such modifications may disturb habits, but they need not, and commonly cannot, disturb the axioms of pure mathematics.

The Kelvin-Rall neural transmission equation derivation is based on an implicit, unprovable assumption about p-m representation:.

     USUAL P-M REPRESENTATION ASSUMPTION: Abstract mathematical      usages and p-m representative usages are the SAME. When we are      representing a physical circumstance with mathematical symbols, those      symbols are NUMBERS, and nothing more, the instant they are written      down. All our rules of abstract mathematics apply immediately to our      symbolic constructions.

On the basis of this USUAL P-M REPRESENTATION ASSUMPTION, all of the crossterms in equations 7, 8, and 9 are ill defined. Here is equation 7, derived in detail in Appendix 1.   At a finite scale delta x each of these crossterms (terms below the first line) must correspond to finite physical effects. We have NO axiomatic guidance for computing these compound expressions.

We are referring to products of p-m representation procedures, not to axiom-based entities.    We must judge the procedures we use to compute these compound expressions by experimental standards. Do these representations map the territories we expect when we check them?    We may if necessary modify those procedures for consistency without violation of any axiom.

We must know what these representations mean numerically. If our computation is valid, the magnitude of a term at a set value of delta x and a set value of independent variable must be unique. After all, our limiting argument is an argument that deals with a decreasing sequence of finite terms.   Before we can validly take the limit of equation 7,  set out in the main paper, and derived in more detail in Appendix 1), and derive a differential equation from it, we must know the magnitude of the crossterms for any finite delta x we choose.   If we proceed according to the USUAL P-M REPRESENTATION ASSUMPTION, we find that our crossterms are not well defined.   Equation 7b is the finite increment form of equation 7, which is in (delta v)/(delta x) form.

The indeterminacy of these crossterms according to the USUAL P-M REPRESENTATION ASSUMPTION can be shown in the following ways.   The difficulties set out below also apply to other crossterms that represent the combination of physical laws over an increment of length, area, volume, or time.

Numerical indeterminacy under "permitted" algebraic manipulations:

We have been taught to assume that the crosseffect-containing terms such as the curly bracketed terms in (7) consist of symbols that are "just numbers." We should be able to algebraically simplify each of these crossterms in many different sequences that involve dimensional unit changes, so long as the end of each of the sequences is in the same dimensional units. The numerical values of all such paths should be the same. They are not.  See Fig. 1 below.  An algebraically unsimplified dimensional group that includes products or ratios of dimensional numbers, such as one of those in curly brackets in (7), is set out in cm length units at A. This quantity is algebraically simplified directly in cm units to produce "expression 1." The same physical quantity is may be translated from A into a "per meter" basis at C. The translated quantity at C can then be algebraically simplified to D. The expression at D, expressed in meter length units, is converted to a "per cm" basis to produce "expression 2." Expression 1 and Expression 2 must be the same, but they are not. The calculation is not consistent with itself.

By repeating different "valid" computational loops in this way, any of the crossterms in curly brackets in (7) or (7b) can be changed to any value at all, large or small.   This is not the valid arithmetical behavior that we conventionally and thoughtlessly expect!   The loop test of Fig. 1 above shows that these crossterms are meaningless as usually calculated, and the reason is as follows:

          Before algebraic simplification, going from one unit system to another adjusts not just the           numerical value of dimensional properties in the different unit systems, but numerical values           corresponding to the spatial variable, as well.

          After algebraic simplification, adjusting it to a new unit system corresponds to adjusting
          numerical values that correspond to the unit change for the dimensional properties only,
          with no corresponding adjustment for the absorbed spatial variable.

The result is an irreversible, numerically absurd, but now standard mathematical operation.

THIS IS AN EXTRA-AXIOMATIC CONCERN: WE HAVE A REPRESENTATION PROCEDURE THAT NEEDS MODIFICATION, BUT NO CHALLENGE TO VALID AXIOMS.

Contradiction between differential equations and the models they came from.

Suppose we assume that the symbols in the crossterms are all "just numbers." When we take the limit as delta x goes to zero on that assumption, these crossterms are all infinitesimal.   So the differential equation we derive on this basis lacks these crossterms.

We take our differential equation, and integrate it back up to a specific scale delta x.   We get an equation that lacks the crossterms that we know existed at scale delta x in the first place.    The values at the same point, derived by two "correct calculations" are inconsistent, and can be very different.

THIS IS AN EXTRA-AXIOMATIC CONCERN: WE HAVE A REPRESENTATION PROCEDURE THAT NEEDS MODIFICATION, BUT NO CHALLENGE TO VALID AXIOMS.

Crossterms also fail a standard test map-representations should pass - the test that the whole should equal the sum of its parts:

In physical representations, wholes should equal the sums of which they consist.   Consider any of the terms below the first line of 7 or 7b. Suppose any term, evaluated at interval delta x, is instead set out as the sum of a number of intervals adding up to interval delta x. If delta x is divided into n pieces, and those n subintervals are computed and summed, that sum will be is only 1/nth (or 1/n²) the value for the same expression computed over interval delta x, taken in one step. We can make the value of the term on the interval delta x vary widely, depending on how many subintervals we choose to divide delta x into. This cannot represent PHYSICAL behavior.   These terms are supposed to represent physical behavior.

THIS IS AN EXTRA-AXIOMATIC CONCERN: WE HAVE A REPRESENTATION PROCEDURE THAT NEEDS MODIFICATION, BUT NO CHALLENGE TO VALID AXIOMS.

The USUAL P-M REPRESENTATION ASSUMPTION is that the symbols we write down are "just numbers" the instant we write them down. In the case of these crossterms that represent multiple physical effects over the same spatial increment, the usual assumption fails. So we need to look more closely at the details of what we are representing, the symbols we use to do that representing, and the procedures that apply to those symbols.   We need representative procedures, that interface with our physical model on the one side, and interface with abstract mathematical usages on the other side, that avoid the representative contradictions shown above.

When we look at how physical models are represented by mathematics, we have NO axioms to rely on, and we have NO valid intuition to guide us. We must rely on the ordinary patterns of experimental investigation.

According to E-3 below, we are seeking a modification of current p-m representation procedure that maps these crossterms validly into axiomatic, abstract mathematics without changing other p-m representation procedures, now currently established, that we have no reason to doubt.

We are violating no valid axiomatic principles when we use experimental approaches to find a p-m representation that passes all operational tests needed to validly map to abstract equations.   If a valid p-m representation procedure is found, that empowers axiomatic mathematics, and in no way diminishes it.

If we use the patterns of experimental logic and investigation with the same care that other people have applied to many other technical problems, operationally valid experimental rules for representation can be found, tested, and verified.  

       Here again are the experimental patterns:

E1. In experimental work, candidate assumptions are somehow recognized or guessed. (No testing can happen before we focus on something to test.)

E2. Candidate assumptions are tested against evidence. So long as an assumption survives all tests, it is used (with some wariness) as a provisional assumption.

E3. Assumptions that evidence contradicts are rejected, or the assumptions are modified so that they do fit evidence.

This is not axiomatics, but we are beyond the axioms of pure mathematics, and have no other axioms. Experimental logic and investigation are all we have.

Operational definition of representative entities and inference of arithmetical rules that apply to them in p-m representation.

The jump between a physical system model, defined in terms of drawings, measurement procedures and other detail, and the abstract mathematical representation of it is taken for granted, but not usually set out clearly.   S.J. Kline and I have tried to understand at a defined, procedural level how measurable circumstances are mapped to mathematical equations.   Kline had written a respected book tightly connected with the subject⁽⁴⁾. A first task was to identify the natural law operators, sometimes called dimensional parameters, in procedural detail.

The natural law operators are the entities that interface between our experimental measurements and the formalities of abstract, symbolic mathematics. Here are some directly measurable natural law operators (often referred to as properties):

mass, density, viscosity, bulk modulus, thermal conductivity, thermal diffusivity, resistance (lumped), resistance (per unit length), inductance (lumped), inductance (per unit length), membrane current leakage (per length), capacitance (lumped), capacitance (per unit length), magnetic susceptibility, emittance, ionization potential, reluctance, resistivity, coefficient of restitution, . . . .

There are many, many more.

All are defined according to the same pattern:

DEFINITION: A natural law operator is a "dimensional transform ratio number" that relates two measurable functions numerically and dimensionally. The natural law operator is defined by measurements (or "hypothetical measurements") of two related measurable functions A and B. The natural law operator is the algebraically simplified expression of {A/B} as defined in A = {{A/B}} B. The natural law operator is a transform relation from one dimensional system to another. The natural law operator is also a numerical constant of proportionality between A and B (a parameter of the system.) The natural law operator is valid within specific domains of definition of A and B that are operationally defined by measurement procedures.

Example: A resistance per unit length determined for a specific wire for ONE specific length increment and ONE specific current works for an INFINITE SET of other length increments and currents on that wire (holding temperature the same.)   (Unrelated measurables could also be expressed as ratios, but such ratios would describe only one point, not an infinite set of points.)

The natural law operators are not axiomatic constructs. They are context-based linear constructs that encode experimental information.

We are concerned with the arithmetical properties of the natural law operators because of the inconsistencies related to crossproducts including spatial entities that have been discussed above.

Let's review the arithmetical properties relating to the natural law operators that we have no reason to doubt, and much reason to be sure of:

Natural law operators work just like dimensional numbers when they are used in exact correspondence with the equation that defines them.

For example, resistance per unit length is the numerical and dimensional transform that expresses Ohm's law, and acts "just like a number" in expressions of Ohm's law.:

Natural law operators may be combined to form compound natural law operators.  

DEFINITION: A compound natural law operator is a "dimensional transform ratio number" that relates two measurable functions numerically and dimensionally. The compound natural law operator is a transform relation from one dimensional system to another.  The compound natural law operator is also a numerical constant of proportionality between one measurable value and another.  The compound natural law operator is the product or ratio of two natural law operators, sometimes in association with a spatial increment. The compound natural law operator is valid within specific domains of definition of the natural law operators that define it.

Natural law operators act "just like numbers" when they multiply or divide to form a compound natural law operator that does not include an increment of space (length, area, volume, or time.)    The Heaviside equations, the conductance equations that apply to a line conductor, such as a wire, are examples. Here is the Heaviside equation for voltage, and the constructed natural law operators that apply to it, operationally defined. The products LC, RC, and LG are compound natural law operators that relate the derivatives and variables shown. They are calculated, numerically and dimensionally, just like other products of dimensional numbers:

LC, RC, LG, and RG act as compound natural law operators as follows:

Mathematical and engineering practice has long depended on our ability to multiply and divide natural law operators in this (scale independent) way.   There is NO axiomatic reason why we can treat natural law operators as ordinary dimensional numbers when we calculate compound natural law operators that do not include spatial increments.   But we have solid experimental support for the fact that we can do so. That evidence goes back to celestial mechanics calculations now nearly three hundred years old, and has been essential all through the history of mathematical physics.

We have practically no experience with compound natural law operators that contain spatial increments, however.    J.C. Maxwell and others worked with such constructs, and were often frustrated in calculational sequences.   Indeed, for reasons reviewed above, we have solid calculational experimental support for the fact that we CANNOT treat compound natural law operators including spatial increments, such as those in the curly brackets below, as "just numbers."

However one may wish to describe or think about our difficulties with these constructs, what is numerically essential is that we infer a rule that is a valid p-m representation.    In physical representations, wholes should equal the sums of which they consist. This is an essential test in cartography, the literal mapping of physical spaces that is the type case of our representations. If the sum of a term over an interval is to be independent of the number of (evenly divided) subintervals into which that interval is divided, that term must be proportional to the following relation:

Every term on the right side of 7b is already linearly related to length (m=1) by the delta x outside the curly bracketed compound natural law operator expressions. The compound natural law operator terms cannot have any length dependence at all.  Otherwise, the terms cannot describe physical behavior. The argument for other compound natural law operator terms (with area or volume increments) will be the same.

For numerical consistency, compound natural law operator expressions in terms such as those shown in 7b must be valid numerical coefficients numerically independent of increment scale, just as other natural law operators are independent of increment scale.   

Even so, for DIMENSIONAL consistency, the dimensional exponents of the increments in the compound natural law terms must be ADDED in the usual way.  We know that in a valid equation, every term must have the same net dimensions. (Suppose not: with an algebraic rearrangement, one side of the equation would have different dimensions from the other.) In appendix 1, equation 7 is derived by valid dimensional number algebra - every term is dimensionally correct.   In every term where an increment occurs, its dimensionality is added in computation of the dimensionality of the term.   We have found reason to change (restrict) the numerical arithmetic procedures used to simplify (define) some of these terms, but the changes must preserve the calculation of dimensionality, which is correct.

We infer the following P-M REPRESENTATION RULE:

ASSUMPTION: When the symbols that represent natural laws are combined to form a new natural law, there are special rules for putting them together. Only AFTER combination according to these rules can a symbolic construction be formed that can be dealt with according to ordinary rules of algebra.

Specifically: Constructed natural law operators in combined effect terms will include constructed natural law operators comprising several natural law operators and (perhaps) increments of space or time variables. Constructed natural law operators are computed (would be algebraically simplified) as follows:

        numerical part:   Numerical parts of the natural law operators making up the constructed natural law         operator are multiplied (divided).     Numerical parts of any increments in the constructed         natural law operator are not part of the multiplication or division (i.e. are set at a numerical value of         1.0)   (The numerical value of the constructed natural law operator is therefore numerically independent           of the increment scale at which it is evaluated.) .........This requirement is satisfied if we restrict the algebraic simplification           to  an increment scale with a numerical coefficient of unity in the dimensional system in which algebraic simplification is           done.)

         dimensional part:   dimensional exponents of all natural law operators and any associated          increments in the constructed natural law operator would be added (subtracted).   This requirement is            also satisfied if we restrict the algebraic simplification to  an increment scale with a numerical coefficient of unity in the            dimensional system in which algebraic simplification is done.)

This rule produces constructed natural law operators that are increment scale insensitive.    Once the constructed natural law operators are algebraically simplified (that is, defined in an arithmetically workable way) these operators can apply to any scale.   

For compound natural law operators without increments, this rule reduces to the procedure we've used for centuries.  This rule  differs for compound natural law operators that have included increments, and avoids the self-contradictory behavior these entities have had.

According to this rule, crossterms in equations derived from coupled physical circumstances are numerically determinant under permitted algebraic manipulation. There is no longer any contradiction between between differential equations and the models they came from. Wholes equal sums of parts.

The rule may be rephrased, in a way some may find easy to understand, and was expressed as follows in the main paper:

When we derive a finite increment equation from a coupled finite increment physical model, that equation will include terms that represent crosseffects including several physical law operators and several increments in interaction together.

           We have no axiomatic basis for deciding what the proper scale or unit            system for algebraic simplification of these terms should be.

           We know that choice of simplification scale and unit system matters            numerically. Therefore, consistency requires us to specify the scale-unit            system conditions for valid algebraic simplification.

Self-consistent results are obtained if we insist that algebraic simplification be done at a physical scale (or length, area, volume, etc) with a numerical value of 1.0 in the unit system in which algebraic simplification is done.    This physical scale can be as large or small as we choose, since we can also choose any consistent unit system for expressing our measurements. After algebraic simplification (at a numerical scale of unity) we can convert our calculation to whatever consistent unit system we choose.

For example, the expressions within the curly brackets of equations (7), (8) and (9) are physical interpretations of natural laws that happen to have been "effectively measured" at scale delta x. To compute a natural law coefficient that corresponds to the expression in the curly brackets, and that is valid at any scale, including differential scale, we convert to a consistent measurement unit system where length delta x is 1 length unit.    (Or we evaluate a "delta x" of 1 length unit in the measurement unit system we are using.)

With our unit system (or measurement) chosen so that the numerical value of delta x=1, we algebraically simplify the expressions in the curly brackets    That done, we convert back to the unit system of our overall calculation, if we have departed from it.  We have an equation that is arithmetically isomorphic to ordinary algebra, that will not generate false infinitesimals or infinities. The equation we had before was not arithmetically isomorphic to ordinary algebra, and our false infinities and infinitesimals trace from that.

We may also say::

"If N effects represented by distributed parameters interact on or in ONE piece of space, the numerical value of that piece of space should multiply into the expression representing the interaction ONCE, not N times".

The old, conventional answer is "N times." The difference between "once" and "n times" is usually insignificant, but in the case of neural transmission makes a very large difference.

We may also infer a consistent notation for evaluation of equations like (7), (8), and (9), in another way, at a differential (point) scale.

The notion of a dimensional parameter at a point, or of spatial increments at a point, has long been ill-defined.  What does "resistance per unit length" mean at a point?  Doesn't that require a notion of "length at a point?"  What might "length at a point" be?  In the evaluation and interpretation of compound natural law operators including spatial increments, the algebraic simplification is an "effective measurement."  We need notations for the spatial increments at a point, that make measurement sense, and that yield results that work consistently when they are integrated.  The following convention passes consistency tests.

When we derive a differential equation (defined at a point) from a coupled finite increment physical model, we must put ALL the variables and increments in our model equation into POINT FORM prior to algebraic simplification. The point forms of spatial quantities and time (in cm and second units) are:



Differential equations so derived, and integrated to a finite scale, correspond to equations evaluated at that finite scale by the rule above. Again, false infinitesimals and false infinities are avoided.

The S-K equation follows from application of this rule to constructed natural law operators that include spatial increments, and the results are the same ones that follow from algebraic simplification of crossterms at a unity spatial scale, followed by passing to the infinitesimal limit.

We can represent combined physical effects that act over spatial increments as finite terms in differential equations.

Summary: Experimental Math at the edge of axiomatics:

This appendix has treated calculations at the INTERFACE between abstract mathematics and the measurable world.   

In mathematical representation of PHYSICAL circumstances, set out in terms of experimentally derived physical laws, we are using mathematical techniques beyond where the axioms of pure math apply.    If we are to proceed at all, we must use experimental mathematics.   This paper has done so.

     The results are not so sure as axiomatic results can be, and the negative results are more sure than the      positive ones.

     We can rule out current interpretations of crossterms that call them infinitesimal in the limit. That is a      strong result.

We can suggest a P-M REPRESENTATION RULE that is a simple change to a currently accepted rule. The P-M REPRESENTATION RULE is consistent with all physical and mathematical issues that have been considered.   The P-M REPRESENTATION RULE is a suggestion, that we can hold to be probable, and that we can compare to further calculations and to physical data.  The rule assumes that the natural law operators that multiply numerically or divide numerically in compound natural law operators with increments interact arithmetically in the same way that natural law operators in compound natural law operators without increments do,  but that spatial increments must be evaluated at a numerical value of unity.   That seems reasonable, and arguments for the arithmetical restriction seem strong.  Still, this arithmetical procedure is an unprovable assumption applied to extra-axiomatic circumstances.   We have gone beyond the range where axioms determine results.   There is no trick that can conjure up axioms for us here: we must work on an experimental basis, as we have done here.

However, the results so far are useful.   The Kelvin-Rall neural conduction equation, which lacks inductance, is strongly ruled out.    The Showalter-Kline neural conduction equation follows from a consistent, reasonable procedure that can be tested further.   It is reasonable that we should be left with a conclusion of experimental math that must be subject to further experimental verification or disproof.

*****************************************************************

Dedication: Professor Stephen J. Kline, of Stanford University, author of SIMILITUDE AND APPROXIMATION THEORY⁴ and one of the great mathematical and experimental fluid mechanicians of this century, was my partner in the work leading up to this paper.   We worked together on this for almost ten years, up to his death in November of 1997. Steve's contributions were many and indispensible. Steve thought hard about the problems of physical representation, and was completely clear about the need to find and fix an error at the interface between the representation of coupled physical models at the level of a sketch, and representation by a differential equation.    The notion that measurables, and constructions of measurables, were ENTIRELY outside the axioms was hard for both of us.   Steve kept thinking about it, and kept me thinking about it, till his life ended.

******************************************************************

NOTES:

1. G. C. Chaitin "Randomness in arithmetic and the decline and fall of reductionism in pure mathematics" p. 25 in G.C. Chaitin THE LIMITS OF MATHEMATICS Springer-Verlag, Singapore 1998.

2. G.C. Chaitin "An Invitation to Algorithmic Information Theory" in Chaitin, op. cit. p. 80

3. K. Godel, COLLECTED WORKS, V.3 manuscript "*1951" cited in Chaitin, op. cit. p.85

4. S.J. Kline SIMILITUDE AND APPROXIMATION THEORY McGraw-Hill, 1967, Springer-Verlag, 1984.

****************************************************************************************
****************************************************************************************
****************************************************************************************

Appendix 3: Some background on resonance

Electrical resonance can store up energy in an oscillation. Fig Ap3-1 shows how the voltage oscillation stored in a resonant system grows when it is driven at its resonant frequency (in magnifying phase.)

FIG AP3-1

If the dendritic spines of neurons are analyzed assuming the S-K transmission equation, they will show such resonance. Resonant magnifications may be very great, and bandwidths extremely narrow, as shown in the dendritic spine resonance calculations graphed in Fig AP3-2:

Resonant systems may all be described in wave propagation terms, and many can also be treated in lumped (LRC) terms.

The International Dictionary of Applied Mathematics explains inductance-resistance-capacitance (LRC) series resonance as follows. The "coil" is a lumped inductance, the "condenser" is a lumped capacitance, and "j" is the square root of -1.

. . . In an a-c circuit containing inductance and capacitance in series ... the impedance is given by

where R is the resistance, is 2 times the frequency, L is the inductance, and C is the capacitance. It can be readily seen that at some frequency the terms in the bracket will cancel each other, and the impedance will equal the resistance alone. This condition, which gives a minimum impedance (and thus a maximum current for a fixed impressed voltage) and unity power factor is known as series resonance. Where the resistance is (relatively) small the current may become quite large. As the voltage drop across the condenser or coil is the product of the current and the impedance of that particular unit, it may also become very large. The condition of resonance may even give rise to a voltage across one of these units that is many times the voltage across the whole circuit, being, in fact, Q times the applied voltage for the condenser and nearly that for the coil. This is possible since the drops across the coil and condenser are nearly 180 degrees out of phase, and thus almost cancel one another, leaving a relatively small total voltage across the circuit . . .⁽¹⁾

A neural element according to K-R will have no inductance, L. There is no LRC resonance under K-R. That same neural element according to S-K may have very large inductance. For an LRC resonator, the resonant frequency, _o is:

The resonant amplification factor, Q, achieved after time to equilibrium⁽²⁾, is:

For an LRC resonator, Q is

Bandwidth (the frequency difference between the half power points on a resonance curve) is:

In addition to lumped (LRC) resonance, columns can also be resonant. Columns (transmission lines) of 1/4 and 1/2 wavelength have been used as resonators in musical instruments for many centuries. More recently, column resonance has been used with precision in the radar and communication fields. Well terminated lengths of neural passage that are sharply open (short circuited) at both ends are resonant when there length is exactly 1/4 of . For column length l_c:

and integer multiples of _o. A well terminated length of neural passage that is sharply closed on one end will be resonant at

and integer multiples of these frequencies.

Consider a neural (dendritic) passage in terms of its defining variables, d, conductor diameter,  delta, membrane thickness, epsilon, membrane dielectric constant and epsilon, axolemma conductivity.

Assuming S-K, conduction velocity in small neural lines (above a very low threshold frequency) is constant. v is:

For a 1/4 wave resonant column of length l_c:

.

Q of the column resonator will be inverse with attenuation per wavelength .

According to K-R, attenuation per wavelength is enormous, Q's are very small, and resonant energy storage does not occur. According to S-K, attenuation per wavelength can be very small, Q's can be in the thousands or tens of thousands, and resonant energy storage can be important. Substituting the neural formula for attenuation per wavelength, , for a well terminated passage (having ends with 100% positive or negative reflection) Q becomes:

Note that Q increases with _o. Column resonator bandwidth in terms of _o, , , and is

Column resonators magnify and store repeating WAVEFORMS that fit as standing waves within them.  In contrast, an LRC resonator stores a sine wave.

For spines, LRC mode Q's in the tens of thousands are possible on the assumption of S-K. Assuming K-R, there is no LRC resonance. Similarly large Q's are possible in column resonant mode assuming S-K. There is no column resonance under K-R.

1. The International Dictionary of Applied Mathematics D.Van Nostrand Company, Princeton, Toronto, New York, London 1960

2. op. cit.



****************************************************************************************
****************************************************************************************


Appendix 4:   Web access to some detailed brain modeling, correspondence with NATURE, and some extensive discussion of the work in George Johnson's New York Times web forums.

If one grants that the domain of measurement is beyond the axioms of pure mathematics, and follows through the consequences, the derivational procedures of this paper follow, and some important conclusions in neural biology follow.

I've discussed the logic of the math, and its background, in George Johnsons's MYSTERIES OF THE UNIVERSE forum at THE NEW YORK TIMES (http://www.nytimes.com). Although George Johnson practically never signs his name to a posting in these forums, some of the anonymous discussants are outstanding. With the help of anonymous discussants who combined deep scientific background, connection, insight, and fine writing ability, the math was discussed in #584-#641 of the BLACK HOLES AND THE UNIVERSE site.   The discussion is of about 80 typed pages.   I responded to the following welcome question:

        budrap - Jun 11, 1998 EST (#584) . . . - When you think about calculus . . . Calculus seems to get         the right answers without providing a very useful/informative map of the territory.

        .. . . . " is there a Copernican/Keplerian analog that might allow us to more clearly comprehend a         part of physics that calculus now masks in infinitesimals? "

I was guided carefully into answering, and would have been hard put to get by with any fuzziness.  The discussion involves a good deal about the history of the problem and its significance.

In the course of this discussion, I made available on the web the same papers submitted here, in a previous form. More than 15 people, many from distinguished universities and institutions, pulled down the papers. To my knowledge, there were no objections to the work. I believe that, if Johnson had heard objections, he would have passed them on to me.

I have had some limited encouragement on this work from NATURE, as follows.

Last year, before my friend S.J. Kline's death, we submitted a number of papers to NATURE.   Our motivation was not to have the papers published as submitted - we knew they were too long.  However, we were having trouble getting the math CHECKED, and hoped that NATURE might help us with the checking.

The editors of NATURE did not help us with the checking we'd asked for.   However, to our honor and surprise, they seem to have given serious consideration to publishing the work.

In response to the draft submissions referenced below, the editors of NATURE wrote a gracious, supportive, and seemingly reluctant rejection letter that I have made available on my website in two forms:

             text at http://www.wisc.edu/rshowalt/natletshrt/

             full facsimile at http://www.wisc.edu/rshowalt/naturlet/

NATURE's letter included this:

" Although it is sadly the case that some studies simply do not lend themselves to the NATURE format, this need not mean that our readers are left in the dark about the latest developments. As you know, we frequently discuss such work in the context of our News and Views section, and if you were to send us preprints of your present papers when they are finally accepted elsewhere for publication, we could explore the possibility of doing likewise with your work. "

NATURE's letter indicates that the editors of an outstanding journal that specializes in neurobiology found the material significant and plausible.

The neurophysiological papers below will be rewritten and submitted to a neurophysiological journal when the central mathematical foundation of the S-K derivation, the subject of this paper, is peer reviewed. This submission to Los Alamos is part of our efforts to get that review.

The submissions to NATURE are referenced here to show the potential importance in neuroscience and neural medicine that the S-K equation has.

HYPOTHESIS: DENDRITES, DENDRITIC SPINES, AND STEREOCILIA HAVE RESONANT MODES UNDER S-K THEORY by M.R. Showalter
                                             at    http://www.wisc.edu/rshowalt/hypothesis/

REASONS TO DOUBT THE CURRENT NEURAL CONDUCTION MODEL by M.R. Showalter                                              at   http://www.wisc.edu/rshowalt/doubt/

A NEW PASSIVE NEURAL EQUATION. Part a: derivation by M.R. Showalter                                              at   http://www.wisc.edu/rshowalt/deriva/

A PASSIVE NEURAL EQUATION: Part b: neural conduction properties by M.R. Showalter                                              at   http://www.wisc.edu/rshowalt/derivb/

Here are the physical derivation (math) papers we submitted to NATURE.

MODELING OF PHYSICAL SYSTEMS ACCORDING TO MAXWELL'S FIRST METHOD by M.R.Showalter and S.J.Kline                       at    http://www.wisc.edu/rshowalt/maxmeth/

EQUATIONS FROM COUPLED FINITE INCREMENT PHYSICAL MODELS MUST BE SIMPLIFIED IN INTENSIVE FORM by M.R.Showalter and S.J.Kline                                                                 at    http://www.wisc.edu/rshowalt/pointfrm/

If equations derived according to Maxwell's 1st method are right, inferences from experiments are only valid over a RESTRICTED range.       by M.R. Showalter and S.J. Kline                                                              at    http://www.wisc.edu/rshowalt/range/

These pieces are still right, but I'm more clear now than Steve and I were on the nonaxiomatic nature of the world of measurement.

For background, we also submitted an annotation of an excellent survey article, showing how the new theory fit what was known.

A verbatim copy of COMPUTATION AND THE SINGLE NEURON by Christof Koch taken from NATURE, 16 January, 1997 annotated and with two appendices by M.Robert Showalter                                                              at    http://www.wisc.edu/rshowalt/kochanno/

The NATURE submissions fit data rather well, but I'd used an inconsistent system of units (MKS units are needed for consistent crossterms.) That would have produced an error, but the error was balanced by my neglect of the effects of glial clefts that surround neural lines:

" The Glial membrane-fluid cleft-neural membrane arrangement cuts effective neural capacitance, greatly increasing signal conduction velocity and greatly reducing the energy requirement per action potential. by M.R. Showalter                       at    http://www.wisc.edu/rshowalt/cleft/