Slashdot Mirror


Weak Electrical Field Found To Carry Information Around the Brain (eurekalert.org)

Zothecula writes: In a development that could lead to improved understanding of memory formation and epilepsy, scientists have discovered a new way information may be traveling throughout the brain. The team has identified slow-moving brainwaves it says could be carried only by the brain's gentle electrical field (abstract), a mechanism previously thought to be incapable of spreading neural signals altogether. "Although the electrical field is of low amplitude, the field excites and activates immediate neighbors, which, in turn, excite and activate immediate neighbors, and so on across the brain at a rate of about 0.1 meter per second."

123 comments

  1. Metric Conversions? by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    0.1 meter per second.

    What's that in decimeters/second?

    What's the point in having lots of prefixes defined if you're then going to ignore them and use extra 0's and decimal points instead?

    Sorry, pet peeve rant over.

    --
    The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    1. Re:Metric Conversions? by hagnat · · Score: 1

      first thing that came to my mind

      at a 100 mm / second speed

      --
      "life is a joke, and someone is laughing at me"
    2. Re:Metric Conversions? by Thanshin · · Score: 0

      0.1 meter per second.

      What's that in decimeters/second?

      What's the point in having lots of prefixes defined if you're then going to ignore them and use extra 0's and decimal points instead?

      For the Americans, it would be like saying the speed was 396850 feet/fortnight instead of the more reasonable 0.39685 MegaFeet/fortnight. ...Or vice versa... You get the idea.

    3. Re:Metric Conversions? by mbone · · Score: 1

      It's MKS (meters - kilogram - second). You got a problem with that?

    4. Re:Metric Conversions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I got a problem with that. CGS forever!

    5. Re:Metric Conversions? by cab15625 · · Score: 1

      Well, it works out to just under 2 furlongs per hour. (about 1.78955 furlongs/hour) How's that?

    6. Re:Metric Conversions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh?

      mm/s would be the next best choice, but no better really. Who the hell uses decimeters for anything?

    7. Re:Metric Conversions? by gstoddart · · Score: 0

      You can't have MegaFeet creeping into those measures ... you need to convert it to the more accepted "furlongs" and "leagues".

      You can't just move around the decimal place.

      You have to express it as 601.286683 furlongs/fortnight.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    8. Re:Metric Conversions? by holophrastic · · Score: 0

      Actually, 0.1 metrers per second is different than 1 decimeter per second.

      Between precision-factors, accuracy-factors, and tools used, it can be quite different. An odometer doesn't measure in micrometres, but a micrometer does.

      So I would presume that 0.1 metres per second, is being measured with a device that measures in metres (and perhaps the "tenth" is an interpolation, or a secondary measurement), whereas 1 decimetre per second would be measured with a device that measures in decimetres.

      That said, I have no idea what kind of device they've used, so I don't know if they've written along these lines.

    9. Re:Metric Conversions? by dpidcoe · · Score: 2

      The unit is irrelevant, significant figures are what denote the accuracy of measurement. 100mm, 10cm, and .1m all have the same amount of significant figures, so the original complaint is still valid.

    10. Re:Metric Conversions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > What's that in decimeters/second?

      1.

      Your question makes no sense in SI. We don't need to think. 1m = 10dm, but it's not very used. Someone already posted 100mm, but 10cm would be more common in metric countries. We really don't need to think about it, it's kinda automatic. Hence the author posted 0.1m.

      What's the point in having lots of prefixes defined if you're then going to ignore them and use extra 0's and decimal points instead?

      Using dm is not very accurate, people tend to use cm, unless:

      - a size is over a meter: my height used to be 1.75m, for instance; or
      - you need more precision, like in a monitor screen size.

      > Sorry, pet peeve rant over.

      For practical matters, we can deal with numbers up to 100. Hence some prefixes are in excess, we really don't need some of them. Of rare use are deci- (/10), deca-(x10), hecto-(x100). But that depends on what we're measuring. A deciliter (one tenth of a liter) is more widely used.

    11. Re:Metric Conversions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's MKS (meters - kilogram - second). You got a problem with that?

      Yes. Why are you mixing metric (meters, kilogram) with Imperial units (hour)? Shouldn't you be using a base 10 system for keeping time if you're going to be a pompous ass?

    12. Re:Metric Conversions? by holophrastic · · Score: 0

      You've spoken about scientific precision. I wasn't. Another example:

      A cyclist can travel 30 km/h on his bicycle. That means if I see him at noon, and I see him again at 1pm, he could have travelled 30km. Simple.

      A cyclist at 30 km/h is not a cyclist at 720 km/day. I cyclist simply cannot travel 720 km/day, because food and sleep is required as a part of the cycling. If a cyclist could actually traverse 720 km in a single day, that would be incredible!

      The words used next to numbers matter. Most speeds, for example, are implicitly averages -- that's an average speed of 30 km/h, obviously with hills and breathing no cyclist is ever at a constant speed for very long. Same goes for the units. Just because a cyclist is measured at an [average] speed of 30 km/h doesn't mean you can say he's going 262'800 km per year. You didn't measure to the year, just like you didn't measure to the day. You also didn't measure to the hour, by the way, so metres per second would probably have been the correct unit, presuming you were using some sort of speedometer.

      Though, now that I think about it, most bicycle speedometers don't measure distance over time, they measure time through distance. But that's another conversation.

    13. Re:Metric Conversions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As 0.1m is probably rounded 1/2"/second ( half an inch per second ) would be the imperial equivalent.

    14. Re:Metric Conversions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The don't. The 100mm is way more accurate as the written zeros imply, 1 *10^2 mm would be equally accurate as .1m but 100mm isn't.

    15. Re:Metric Conversions? by burtosis · · Score: 1

      Nah just go full out crazy and put it in light years per fortnight. Has the added benefit of scientific notation to boot.

    16. Re:Metric Conversions? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      It's MKS (meters - kilogram - second). You got a problem with that?

      Yeah, I got a problem with that. CGS forever!

      For those that are unaware, centimeters-grams-seconds (CGS) was the predominant system used by scientists before Système international d'unités.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    17. Re:Metric Conversions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10 centimetres per second. Woop.

    18. Re: Metric Conversions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a metrician living in the nordics, I can say that decimeters are mostly used when talking about snow depth. Deciliter is in common use though.

    19. Re:Metric Conversions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I cyclist simply cannot travel 720 km/day, because food and sleep is required as a part of the cycling. If a cyclist could actually traverse 720 km in a single day, that would be incredible!

      Some cyclists would probably disagree :) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_records#24_Hours_record
      "Jean-Pascal Roux set the road record at 521.33 miles (839 km) in 24 hours at Caderousse on June 18, 2009"
      Maria Parker set a new road record at 469.198 miles (755.101 km) on October 13, 2012

    20. Re:Metric Conversions? by stjobe · · Score: 2

      Yes. Why are you mixing metric (meters, kilogram) with Imperial units (hour)? Shouldn't you be using a base 10 system for keeping time if you're going to be a pompous ass?

      The hour isn't an Imperial unit.

      It isn't metric either, but it is among the non-SI units mentioned in the SI. The second, along with the other units in the GP, is not only metric but also part of the SI system that most of the world uses these days.

      How's that for pompous? ;)

      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    21. Re:Metric Conversions? by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      heh, I'll bet they do agree -- it was most incredible indeed!

    22. Re:Metric Conversions? by dpidcoe · · Score: 2

      You're making the same mistake everyone does when dealing with significant figures for the first time. "100mm" is only a single sigfig, the trailing zeros don't count for anything unless followed by a decimal. If you wanted to indicate 3 sigfigs for 100mm you'd write it as "100.mm" or preferably "1.00x10^2mm".

    23. Re:Metric Conversions? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I rarely use the ones where the power isn't a multiple of 3.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    24. Re:Metric Conversions? by dpidcoe · · Score: 1

      That's actually a bad example because:
      1) 30 and 720 have different numbers of significant figures
      2) A good cyclist can maintain an average of 30kph for a day. And if you want to quibble over only the best of the best cyclists, I'll point out that that single significant figure leaves a lot of leeway to fudge the distance, especially when multiplied out over 24 hours.
      3) As you pointed out, seconds are the usual unit of time. You're not only using the wrong time unit, but also changing the time unit instead of the distance unit. Your original point has you changing the distance unit.

      I get that you're trying to make a point about laymans terms vs scientific terms, but I think you're missing just how much they're derived from the scientific ones.

    25. Re:Metric Conversions? by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      All I wanted to say is that in order to measure 30 km per hour, you must be measuring both 30km and 1 hour. You can't measure 30km/h in 1 second -- it'll actually take you a whole hour to measure 30 km per hour. That is all. Everything else was merely conversationally part of the examples.

    26. Re:Metric Conversions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4in/s
      you invoked Cunningham's law.

      For the unintiated: .1 meter = 100mm
      1in = 25.4mm
      100/25.4 ~= 4

    27. Re:Metric Conversions? by dpidcoe · · Score: 1

      You can't measure 30km/h in 1 second -- it'll actually take you a whole hour to measure 30 km per hour. That is all.

      Car speedometers around the world beg to differ with that assertion.

    28. Re:Metric Conversions? by mikael · · Score: 1

      Inches, feet, yards, furlongs, rods, hands and hogsheads are Imperial units of measurement. Everything else is in rebel units of measurement.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    29. Re:Metric Conversions? by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      ...and that would be the incorrect part. That's my point. They aren't measuring anything per hour. They could. My GPS does -- says distance covered in the last hour. But the speedometer doesn't. I don't know what the measurement frequency is for a typical speedometer. I do know that it can't drop from 200kph to 10kph in less than a second, so the physical needle is, in and of itself, an average due to a physical lag. I would presume that, like a bicycle, the speedometer measures axel revolutions, multiplied by expected tire circumference. In which case, I would expect it to measure each rotation.

    30. Re:Metric Conversions? by Arterion · · Score: 1

      Instantaneous velocity

      --
      "That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
    31. Re:Metric Conversions? by Arterion · · Score: 2

      I don't know what you mean by "a single instance" in this case. If you mean "instant", then that would be an infinitesemal unit of time during which you could cover in an infinitesemal distance in space (ds/dt). What you suggest is that if you plot position over time, you can't ever identify the slope of the tangent line at a given point, but of course you can do that with calculus using limits. There is no rate of change between a point and itself, but the instantaneous velocity at that point does represent an actual physical quantity, kinetic energy, with respect to the object's mass.

      In a physical sense, you can't really look at "zero" time because of the continuous "analog" nature of the universe. You can look at smaller and smaller units of time, but you actually can't get to zero. On a subatomic scale, you end up hitting a fundamental limit of being able to know both position and momentum (mass*velocity) of a particle simultaneously. That's the kind of weirdness that gives you cats that are both dead and alive.

      --
      "That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
    32. Re:Metric Conversions? by dpidcoe · · Score: 1

      And now you're just getting pedantic for the sake of prolonging a discussion. The bottom line is that significant figures are for expressing accuracy, and units should be picked to a standard (e.g. MKS, IPS, etc.) and/or in order to minimize the amount of extraneous zeros (e.g. don't use mm to express distances several km long).

    33. Re:Metric Conversions? by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      units should not be picked to a standard. Units should be picked to the actual unit measured -- not the accuracy. Accuracy should be in significant digits. Units should be in what was actually measured. If you measured around the world one mm at a time, then yeah, use mm, because that's what you used. There's nothing wrong with more numbers. There is something wrong with expressing something that you didn't do. That's why my GPS doesn't know my speed when I'm on a steep hill, it's totally wrong.

      Standards are only useful when relating to others using the same standard. That benefit comes at the cost of comprehension. That works in math, and pure math alone. It doesn't work in any applied science.

      The shorter the ruler, the longer the shoreline.

      The door can't be half open, just like it can't be half closed. There are threshhold effects in this world. Every time you average, you eliminate the possibility of a threshhold effect.

    34. Re:Metric Conversions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. Moronic comment of the day.

      Look, velocity is an instantaneous measurement. You've learned just enough to be more stupid than if you knew less. How would you express an instantaneous measurement of velocity?

    35. Re:Metric Conversions? by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      Instantaneous is always a mathematical construct. It does not exist in the real world. So you can call it an average, or a determination, or an expectation, depending on what you've actually done in order to calculate it. But since you didn't measure it over an instant, there's no difference between measuring ten times per second and describing the middle, or measuring three times a year and describing august. You don't know what the velocity was at that instant, because that's not actually measurable. You're always averaging over time.

      If you measured 100 times per second, the object could still have suddenly come to a dead-stop for 0.005s and you'd never notice. In fact, it could have come to a dead-stop every 0.01s for 0.005s. So it could actually be going twice as fast as you measure, half the time, and be a dead zero for the other half, and you'd have no idea.

      To magnify that to macroscopic levels, if I make $10'000 every second month ($60'000 per year), my average instantaneous revenue is $5'000 per month. Except I'm still broke in January, until the end of February, before I get my first pay-cheque. So I don't have $5'000 on February 1st. But you didn't look on February 1st. You looked on March 1st, saw $10'000 in my bank. From that, you can "average" the monthly, but you cannot "determine" the monthly.

    36. Re:Metric Conversions? by dpidcoe · · Score: 1

      And none of that has anything to do with using significant figures to express accuracy of a measurement and picking units for readability.

    37. Re:Metric Conversions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cintimeters are used only by taylors now.

  2. New technologies? by Vermonter · · Score: 1

    Does this mean the scifi trope of using a machine to put knowledge in your head and getting years of education in matter of moments might actually be feasible?

    1. Re:New technologies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Does this mean the scifi trope of using a machine to put knowledge in your head and getting years of education in matter of moments might actually be feasible?

      Yes, that is the sole and immediate outcome of this discovery.

    2. Re:New technologies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think you meant putting commercials in your head and getting years of brand loyalty in a matter of moments, right?

    3. Re:New technologies? by sittingnut · · Score: 1

      knowledge and education is one thing, ability to act on knowledge and wisdom is another .
      sort of distinction that people who write 'scifi tropes' (and those expect their realization) usually fails to make.

    4. Re:New technologies? by Comboman · · Score: 1

      Does this mean the scifi trope of using a machine to put knowledge in your head and getting years of education in matter of moments might actually be feasible?

      At 0.1 m/s it would take over a second to get from one end or your brain to the other, so even if it could be used for a man-machine interface it would definitely not be a high-speed interface.

      --
      Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    5. Re:New technologies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you meant putting commercials in your head and getting years of brand loyalty in a matter of moments, right?

      Oh no... the tin-foil hat crowd was right?

    6. Re:New technologies? by DarkOx · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I was wondering if it maybe actually lends credence to people who claim they have allergies to various types of EM.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    7. Re:New technologies? by Viol8 · · Score: 2

      Except these people are usually allergic to whatever is the current latest technology whether it be cellphones, wifi or whatever. Oddly none of them seem to be allergic to domestic electrical power cables which emit frequencies far closer to brainwaves than VHF and UHF devices.

    8. Re:New technologies? by dpidcoe · · Score: 2

      No. Completely different frequencies, and 99% of the EM allergy people are purely psychosomatic. The very few who actually do show a difference between a device that's transmitting and a device with a blinking red light and some fake antennas seem to be keying to some element other than EM, such as high frequency switching noise from a poorly designed transformer.

    9. Re:New technologies? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Lightspeed briefs! For the discriminating crotch.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    10. Re:New technologies? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Does it also mean that we will be living on Mars soon, sipping red wine?

    11. Re:New technologies? by rasmusbr · · Score: 1

      Not likely, since provocation studies failed to show that electro sensitive people are sensitive to electromagnetic fields.

    12. Re:New technologies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Happens quite a lot lately, doesn't it?

    13. Re:New technologies? by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Except a quick a Google shows A LOT of people seems to be worried about living near or under power lines, and are utterly convinced electric blankets cause migraines.

      I don't buy it myself, I think a lot more people would have a lot more problems if it were really a thing. Maybe though in some extreem situations there could be some validity to it.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    14. Re:New technologies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      0.1 m/s is when the brain is communicating with itself. It doesn't say anything about what limitation it would have when applied externally. Presumably one could manipulate the field differently for each cell.
      It also doesn't say anything about throughput. So, it takes a couple of seconds for a signal to go from one end to the other, but nothing of how close these waves can be or how much information they contain.

    15. Re:New technologies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not by this means. Incidentally, within the neural network quantum tunneling effects result in a statistically significant chance of one neuron's firing stimulating the receptors of nearby neurons for which there is no direct neural connection. I don't have the math in front of me, but apparently this is likely enough that we would expect the effect to have some impact on human cognition (though the overt impact on human behavior is unclear).

    16. Re: New technologies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't. Mars needs to serve green wine, being mostly red itself.

    17. Re:New technologies? by wanfuse123 · · Score: 1

      Create a device that reads these signals and transports these signals (altered and unaltered to remote sections of the brain) at the speed of light rather than at the speed of these signal propagations and then reintroduce them into the brain. Super fast, enhanced brains, with perfect recall, and tie in to a supercomputer, and all the world knowledge. Might actually be a way to make it so that the human can keep pace with super intellegent machines for a hundred years or so.

    18. Re:New technologies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And eating cornflakes.

    19. Re:New technologies? by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      Just fucking don't go there. My wife is one of those nutters. She opens the kitchen windows if I've been using the microwave.

      There's an old joke about people who complained about a radio mast that they said was causing all kinds of problems from eczema to sour milk. The owner apologised, and hoped that it wouldn't get worse when the time came to switch it on.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    20. Re:New technologies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rest assured it does not. Such people are crackpots, defined by their scientifically proven inability to prove evidence to their unfounded claims.

    21. Re:New technologies? by mikael · · Score: 1

      To keep all your cortical units and neural units in sync, it was known that "slow waves" traveled through the brain tissue. That's particularly important for vision and audio processing given that over 30% of brain mass is dedicated to these inputs. The presence or absence of an electric field is known to speed up and slow down cell activity.

      Various types of knowledge are also known to be stored in specific. Route-planning and map based knowledge are stored in the hypothalamus. I don't think this could instantly download lots of information but it might help boost brain activity.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    22. Re:New technologies? by mikael · · Score: 1

      Heat from an electric blanket would raise body temperature. Body temperature raises heart pressure to provide extra cooling. Extra blood pressure = migraine.
      The extra heat might also have some effect on the digestive system, heating up dissolved gases like CO2, CH4 and putting them through the blood stream.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    23. Re:New technologies? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "Oh no... the tin-foil hat crowd was right?"

      What conspiracy theorists failed to realize is that tinfoil helmets were actually the transmission mode for this indoctrination technology. Muahahahahahahaha!

    24. Re:New technologies? by psithurism · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, it's frequently not a joke; e.g. http://idle.slashdot.org/story...

      If brain wave interference is the problem, then the best solution would be a tin foil helmet (no joke; it would make a protective Faraday cage).

    25. Re:New technologies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a limited amount of scientific evidence to support not using electronic blankets, not enough to say they're harmless and not enough to ban them. You can start learning about it from here: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/02/24/is-your-electric-blanket-safe.aspx

    26. Re:New technologies? by The+Raven · · Score: 1

      I was wondering if it maybe actually lends credence to people who claim they have allergies to various types of EM.

      When they can reliably detect the presence of active EM radiation, rather than only reacting to the presence of blinking LED on non-functional devices, then credence will be lent.

      Pass the double-blind, or GTFO.

      --
      "I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
    27. Re:New technologies? by Mr.CRC · · Score: 1

      Mercola. Ugh.

    28. Re:New technologies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Except a quick a Google shows A LOT of people seems to be worried about living near or under power lines, and are utterly convinced electric blankets cause migraines.

      I don't buy it myself, I think a lot more people would have a lot more problems if it were really a thing. Maybe though in some extreem situations there could be some validity to it.

      I believe the stories about illness from living under high-tension power lines, but I don't think it's from the electric fields.
      I think it occurs in places where they clear the right-of-way by truck-spraying herbicides which used to be things like 2,4,5-T contaminated with dioxins.
      Also, I suspect some places got rid of their PCB based transformer oil by dumping it along the high tension line right-of-ways.
      The illnesses that I read about when people first started believing the wires made them sick sounded to me much like low-level dioxin doses.

    29. Re:New technologies? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Even if the sheilding was faulty, I'm not seeing a plausible mechanism for there being waves bouncing around the room afterwards.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    30. Re: New technologies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd prefer not to remove my head from neck to encapsulate my head in tin foil.

      Kind of defeats the purpose.

  3. Telepathy? by mbone · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have to wonder if this isn't a path to telepathy, either natural or mediated by technology.

    1. Re:Telepathy? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      If so, it will be interesting, I think, to see what effect this would have on wiretapping laws.

    2. Re:Telepathy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't this be proof that auras actually exists, as with so many others stuff from the Vedas?

      Of course not! We are unique and no knowledge exists unless under patent law.

    3. Re:Telepathy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I *knew* you were going to say that!

    4. Re:Telepathy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm hoping they announce that the EM field can actually be blocked by wearing a tinfoil hat!

    5. Re:Telepathy? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I was thinking more of a situation where in what is otherwise a two-party consent jurisdiction, you simply record the thoughts of one consenting party. Since their thoughts will necessarily include what is being heard by that person, you can effectively record what the otherwise unrecorded person is saying simply by recording the mental activity of the person hearing what they are saying.

    6. Re:Telepathy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that the human nervous system produces an electromagnetic field, and that this field surrounds the body and is easily detected, has been known for a very long time. There is nothing mysterious about that.

      The ability to see this field with one's eyes, on the other hand, is much closer to magic. The only fact I am aware of, related to this, is that a hallucination of a glowing aura is a common side-effect of some forms of mental disorder.

      The discovery in the article is that neurons will respond to the electromagnetic field generated by the rest of the brain, effectively allowing information to travel from one neuron to another even if they are not in direct contact. Given the strength of this field, there is no reason to believe that this could grant telepathy or related woo.

    7. Re:Telepathy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting that some of those hallucinations involve seeing "through" other people, their blood systems and internal organs. What if some of these hallucinogenic chemicals could convert photons of radio-wave energy (emitted from Irons atoms in Haemoglobin) into visible light wavelengths. The different configurations of Iron atoms with and without oxygen atoms bound would change their emission spectra.

    8. Re: Telepathy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What?

    9. Re:Telepathy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either you are normal or you are criminally playing fool.

    10. Re:Telepathy? by JohnStock · · Score: 1

      Why on Earth is that something you think could be related in any way, shape or form?

  4. First Post! Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least it would have been if my brain's electrical field wasn't so weak.

  5. ok this opens the question again by argStyopa · · Score: 2

    The idea that cell phones 'heat up your brain' or cause direct brain damage is pretty ridiculous, given the energies involved.

    This would seem to suggest that while actual BRAIN damage is still impossible, it's perhaps not impossible that such EMF may interfere with these just-discovered slow-moving signals and whatever they do.

    Interesting data on the variety and strength of EMF we encounter daily is here;
    http://www.who.int/peh-emf/abo...

    Hopefully someone with a better understanding of how these compare to the "2.5â"5 mV/mm" quoted in the abstract can comment.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:ok this opens the question again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, this is impossible.

      Not unless you give us more money, then it is possible and something we can mitigate, maybe, if we tell you at all.

    2. Re:ok this opens the question again by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 2

      Your linked article lists field strengths in V/m, which is conveniently identical to mV/mm. The field strengths in the abstract (2 to 6 mV/mm) are lower than most of the strengths in the WHO table.

      Then again, your cell phone accurately detects and decodes signals thousands of times weaker than these, if I understand the numbers correctly. Your cell phone works fine even when there are refrigerators or toasters or TVs nearby, because its tuner blocks signals outside the frequency of interest. Perhaps the same thing happens in the brain. After all, the electric field from a nearby lightning stroke (1-2 km away) is hundreds of times higher than this, but we don't see people spontaneously rebooting whenever there's a thunderstorm. (Dogs, on the other hand...)

    3. Re:ok this opens the question again by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Great points - thanks for the explanation. Obviously, while these signals crawl around our brains, EITHER:
      a) they're of trivial importance, if any, to brain function, or
      b) we've evolved ways of filtering the natural EMF we regularly encounter.

      The abstract seems to suggest to me that the signals are by-products of other processes anyway, and thus have me leaning toward a), above.

      --
      -Styopa
    4. Re:ok this opens the question again by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      I have seen my cat get so spooked from a thunder clap she literally got stuck frozen in the middle of the room. She did not respond to my verbalizing at all. I had to get up a shake her after a short while. After that she was fine.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    5. Re:ok this opens the question again by tomxor · · Score: 1

      The idea that cell phones 'heat up your brain' or cause direct brain damage is pretty ridiculous, given the energies involved

      No, don't worry, it doesn't open up this question again:

      Nobody smart was ever denying that EMF could interact with the brain... However an overwhelming number of studies have disproven that everyday EMF has a harmful (or even any measurable) effect on the brain. The correlation between perception/placebo and effect is ridiculously strong - so much so that you can invert the on LED in a wireless router and an ES will claim to be affected when it's off every time.

      You don't need to try to explain the mechanisms of an effect that doesn't exist, that's a contradiction in terms, it's already been disproven there is no mechanism to explain... Try this as an analogy:

      Ingesting water (in everyday quantities) is extremely hazardous to humans.

      Obviously we know this to be false, but lets say that a large number of studies have disproven the claim anyway... there's not really anything else to say, what can you explain about this fictitious effect? On the other hand there are a great number of interactions between the human body and water... and we know it to be vital. Similarly the discovery of new interactions between EMF and the human body does not need worry about entertaining these crazy ideas that have been well and truly debunked.

    6. Re:ok this opens the question again by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      That doesn't necessarily mean that some ambient electrical field temporarily froze her brain. More likely is an evolutionary fight-or-flight response was triggered but since the threat (thunder clap) couldn't be seen or its direction sufficiently ascertained, the response was to freeze in place until the threat passed (or until further information came in as to where it was coming from/what was making it).

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    7. Re:ok this opens the question again by amacbride · · Score: 1

      Cats are social creatures (though not so much as dogs or humans), so a solitary cat (which I will designate CAT-1) is much more sensitive to interference than a group or clowder of them, which I will designate CAT-5. So, a simple upgrade should solve your problem. :)

    8. Re:ok this opens the question again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'heat up your brain'

      That's measurable, and the recommendations reflect that. Whether that causes issues in the long term, that's debatable. Surely high frequency and low power waves don't interfere with a low frequency electric field? Very high power and low frequency EM emanations from machinery and power electronics might, though. Magnetic fields have been used to alter the function of the brain already.

    9. Re:ok this opens the question again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another way of stating b) is that "a group of people are being evolved out of existence due to EMF".

      Never mind, you cunts enjoy your wifi and your smartphones, as long as you're OK who give a fuck about anyone else?

    10. Re:ok this opens the question again by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      I realize, my guess is she was reacting to the sound if anything. I was a near by strike, knocked a picture off the wall even. Loud as hell. Certainly scared me plenty. I think she was possibly in a kind of shock.

      I have no doubt she would recovered on her own in time. It was however long enough for me to be come concerned about enough to try talking to her and then to get up and walk across the room to give her a little shake.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    11. Re:ok this opens the question again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did she freeze a couple of seconds *before* you heard the thunder clap? Because that's what would happen if it was caused by the EMF propagating at the speed of light.

    12. Re:ok this opens the question again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another way of stating b) is that "a group of people are being evolved out of existence due to EMF".

      No, another way of stating b) is that "a group of pre-human creatures failed to produce descendants because they were susceptible to EMF in the natural environment." Your way doesn't restate b), it just makes an inflammatory and remarkably stupid new claim.

      Never mind, you cunts enjoy your wifi and your smartphones, as long as you're OK who give a fuck about anyone else?

      To the contrary, I more than "give a fuck", I'm full of glee at the prospect that your superstition might actually somehow discourage you from contributing to the gene pool. Willful ignorance should never be a pro-survival characteristic.

  6. I effing told you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1


    People laugh when they see me wearing my colander but it helps me focus and the aliens cannot read my mind. -Fact.

  7. Already duplicated in hardware by Daetrin · · Score: 2

    Almost the exact same thing was demonstrated with evolovable hardware in the 90s:
    http://www.damninteresting.com...

    Programmable circuits were trained through an evolutionary process to perform certain tasks. At the end of the process they performed the tasks perfectly, but the actual circuits that were produced were not understandable or functional under the normal rules of circuit design, using roundabout methods for the components to effect each other that were dependent on the exact design of the model of programmable circuit they were using. Try to implement the same circuit design using other hardware and it would just fail to do anything at all.

    Evolution will "make use" of anything it can, even and perhaps especially factors that no intelligent designer would ever consider.

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    1. Re:Already duplicated in hardware by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Evolution will "make use" of anything it can, even and perhaps especially factors that no intelligent designer would ever consider.

      Related: What intelligent designer would situate a pleasure/reproduction area through a waste disposal zone?

      If there was an intelligent designer, he either had a weird sense of humor or didn't feel like putting in too much effort into his job.... Oh dear lord, God is Wally!

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:Already duplicated in hardware by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      Evolution will "make use" of anything it can, even and perhaps especially factors that no intelligent designer would ever consider.

      Related: What intelligent designer would situate a pleasure/reproduction area through a waste disposal zone?

      If there was an intelligent designer, he either had a weird sense of humor or didn't feel like putting in too much effort into his job.... Oh dear lord, God is Wally!

      Do you need to speak with someone about the birds and bees? You seem to be a bit confused. Waste would be solid waste whereas urine mostly sterile if no infection is present.

      The genital area in humans would be in the front for both sexes. Waste is handled in the back.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    3. Re:Already duplicated in hardware by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Liquid waste products - even sterile ones - are still waste products.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    4. Re:Already duplicated in hardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Urine may be sterile, but that doesn't mean it isn't a waste product -- urea, the main ingredient in urine, is clearly a waste product.

    5. Re: Already duplicated in hardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It down in a protected area that's why

  8. The tans by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    "Although the electrical field is of low amplitude, the field excites and activates immediate neighbors, which, in turn, excite and activate immediate neighbors, and so on across the brain at a rate of about 0.1 meter per second."

    Ahhhh, body thetans. At last we have found you!

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  9. Stopping to think by RY · · Score: 1

    may have some meaning. The slower brain signals must be the more thought out brain signals. How much bandwidth does each signal send? Are they coherent thoughts or just random pulses?

    1. Re:Stopping to think by plopez · · Score: 1

      I think those are topics for further research. Good groundbreaking research often opens the door to exploring new lines of inquiry.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    2. Re:Stopping to think by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Another option is that they carry "emotion" or more accurately to say, they ARE emotions.

      I suggest this because I think emotions are a global process rather than a local one, and a simple network of neurons without a global influence would need to be extremely well arranged to mimic a global process.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  10. A quick question for hardware engineering types... by mmell · · Score: 2
    If we can (to some rudimentary extent) approximate the previously understood behavior of neurons and synapses as electro-mechanical processes on a silicon chip, how do we approximate this new (slow) method of data distribution within a computational system?

    If this does prove to be a mechanism used by organic nervous systems to move information around the neural network (something akin to bias in an old-style electronic circuit?), we will need to create and understand a similar mechanism for silicon-based computing platforms as a necessary step towards creating true machine intelligence.

  11. EMF implications? by plopez · · Score: 1

    Does this have any implications for electromagnetic fields produced by power lines? Just a thought.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  12. CEMI field by invid · · Score: 2
    --
    The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
  13. Nothing conclusive yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Meh, this doesn't seem like it's news yet.

    Headline: "Weak Electrical Field Found To Carry Information Around the Brain"

    Link: "The only explanation left is an electrical field effect."

    They haven't actually measured or proven it yet, and it seems to conflict with existing evidence that electromagnetism doesn't influence thought.

  14. and slower on Mondays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    have they factored in caffeine?

  15. Re:A quick question for hardware engineering types by Rockoon · · Score: 1

    how do we approximate this new (slow) method of data distribution within a computational system?

    Raise and lower activation thresholds (or the bias nodes that you are using to mimic a dynamic threshold.)

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  16. My experience in a Faraday cage by MasterOfGoingFaster · · Score: 2

    I was wondering if it maybe actually lends credence to people who claim they have allergies to various types of EM.

    I was wondering the same thing. Last year I was involved in the construction of a large (4 meter cube) copper-screened Faraday cage for 100Kv partial discharge testing. When we buttoned it up, I went inside and closed the door. It was oddly quiet - even though it was simply screen. At the time, I wondered if there was something to the idea that our brain was susceptible to RF energy. It was strangely peaceful and enjoyable.

    --
    Place nail here >+
    1. Re:My experience in a Faraday cage by chihowa · · Score: 1

      It was oddly quiet - even though it was simply screen.

      It may have also been actually quieter or simply different in ambient sound. Screen will disrupt the propagation of sound to an extent that varies depending on the frequency of the sound. You could test this by changing the overall shielding effectiveness of the cage or bringing some RF sources into the cage with you.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  17. u r all faggots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just thought I would inform you of that. It is my pubic service.

  18. Typical Slashdot hive mind thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    EM sensitive people are crazy because ... (regurgitates current scientific knowledge). There never seems to be any acknowledgement here that our knowledge of how the world works has changed throughout history, and will continue to change in the future.

    The correct answer is "we don't know for sure", not "ha ha EM sensitive people are crazy, lulz".

    Were you really born in the first period of human history when there were no significant scientific discoveries left to make? The brain is at best very poorly understood. We shouldn't dismiss the notion just because "I like wifi and smartphones".

    1. Re:Typical Slashdot hive mind thinking by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      If they are not crazy, then they should be able to tell whether the field-generating equipment is turned on or not.
      They can't.

  19. The Field by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Although the electrical field is of low amplitude, the field excites and activates immediate neighbors, which, in turn, excite and activate immediate neighbors, and so on across the brain. The Field is what gives a Jedi his power. It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us, and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together.

    If the explanation includes midichlorians, I'm outa here.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  20. Brain Waves by Ozoner · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised that no one has mentioned that Brain Waves (eg Beta, Alpha, Theta, Delta) were discovered at the beginning of the 20th century.
    Different brain wave frequencies have long been associated with different mental states.

    Building Brain Wave Detectors was all the rage amongst hobbyists many years ago.
    Brain Waves are normally detected using electrodes on the scalp, but they also generate very weak fields which can be picked up by non-contact methods in a screened room.

    Surely this is simply an extension of that research?

  21. What implications does this have for TMS therapy? by Arterion · · Score: 1

    I always thought Transcranial magnetic stimulation was something of a quacky gimmick. I've been to a clinic where they offer this kind of treatment, for unrelated reasons. It makes the clinic much less credible in my opinion, but maybe there is something to it after all.

    --
    "That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
  22. crowdference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you ever visited a sports game, you will remember the times that the crowd took you over.