Talk:Soliton model in neuroscience

message: I read their 2005 article not long after it was published and just today stumbled upon this wikipedia page. I never thought to check to see if there was one. Reading the article for the first time today I found it mostly a response to, rather than a summary of, the theory. I would like to see a bit more description of the model itself at the top of the article. Sorry for not logging in. 64.114.134.52 (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mark as needs expansion? 

message: Wikipedia is not a place for original research. The section "Differences between model predictions and experimental observations" is full of speculations about soliton model by someone who has not even tried to understand the model. Its just too much effort to correct the article at this point and may be the article should be deleted as was previously suggested, not because it represents a fringe theory but because it has been vandalized massively by someone who has too much time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.221.92.113 (talk) 02:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many speculations and the article has been vandalized 

message: The article has not been vandalized. The section "Differences between model predictions and experimental observations" simply points out obvious difficulties that render the model indefensible. Any person with an undergraduate understanding of neuroscience will see these difficulties immediately. 
If proponents of the model think these objections are not valid, then refute them. Wikipedia is not a place for original research; but, it is also not a vanity press for publicizing eccentric theories.
The model -is- fringe science, verging on Crank. It was advanced by a credentialed scientist, but after a decade has received no notice or support in the neuroscience community. 
The original article treated this crank science as a significant challenge to the universally accepted Hodgkin Huxley model of the action potential.  The Hodgkin-Huxley model is at the base of Neuroscience; accepting this model requires disregard of (literally) thousands of careful experimental and theoretical publications.
I concur that the article should be deleted---because it glorifies an hypothesis advanced in only a small number of refereed publications and having no support beyond its original authors.
However, under no circumstances should this silly, naive hypothesis be presented as a legitimate challenge to the Hodgkin-Huxley model (and the whole of neuroscience).
---------------
Note: there are thermal and mechanical changes associated with the action potential. Study of these phenomena is entirely legitimate and may be a significant supplement to the accepted model.
However, although model proponents fudge the issue, the published documents clearly show that the model is intended to replace Hodgkin Huxley, not to supplement it.
Note: I agree that further citations are needed. The original article was too heinously false to leave in public view.
-------------
MervinFerd (talk) 03:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: '''The article has not been vandalized; false and misleading information has been corrected'''

message: The anonymous commenter claimed that I had not even tried to understand the model.
Here is the description of the model in the original article, which has been changed, not entirely by me:
"On the other hand the soliton model ( and sound waves in general) depends on adiabatic propagation where the energy provided at the source of excitation is carried adiabatically through the medium, i.e. plasma membrane. Indeed it was the measurement of a temperature pulse and the absence of heat release during an action potential, measured and repeated in several systems [3][4], that seeded the initial ideas of nerve impulses being an adiabatic phenomenon much like sound waves. In particular it was the active cooling during a nerve impulse that contradicts the Hodgkin–Huxley model. To be specific the soliton model is concerned only with the propagation of nerve impulse and not with its excitation (i.e. action potential)."
This more recent writing clearly states that the HH model is false and is to be replaced by the Solition model: Advances in Planar Lipid Bilayers and Liposomes 16: 275-299  http://www.membranes.nbi.dk/pdf/2012_AppalivanRienenHeimburg_APLBL.pdf#
: "Taking the reversible heat of the nerve pulse serious, one is inclined to state that the HH model in itself cannot be correct. The same argument would hold for a combination of both models. Thus, it seems necessary that any protein-based picture would still operate on the basis of reversible processes, for instance, by employing capacitive currents rather than ohmic currents, that is, by transporting charges forth and back in a reversible process. This implies that the HH picture cannot easily be combined with reversible physics and the soliton model without seriously changing its mechanism."--pg 295
  
The essential feature of the hypothesis is 'adiabatic propagation', like a sound wave. The published sources don't get more specific than that.
But, taking that as the essential of the hypothesis, the obvious question arises: 
"From whence comes the energy to spread the excitation from the axon to the very much larger surface area of a soma." 
I listed a number of other obvious objections in the disputed section, but this one is the easiest to explain to someone not familiar with the field.
The claims about heat generation being incompatible with Hodgkin -Huxley are false. See, for example:
http://www.pnas.org/content/74/9/3810.full.pdf'''
Note also that there is no mechanism of generating the sound wave.
MervinFerd (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of the soliton model as originally posted

message: Some proponents of the 'thermodynamic' soliton model seem not to be well versed in thermodynamics. The 'adiabatic' cooling/heating cycle is consistent with some process resembling a phase change that reverses as the wave passes. I cited a paper (http://www.pnas.org/content/74/9/3810.full.pdf) that attributes this change to opening/closing of the HH sodium channels, but other changes would work as well.
But, the heat argument is fundamentally invalid.
The HH ionic currents are undeniably present; the membrane capacitance is undeniably discharged; these processes must produce heat. That is basic physics. Some studies observe this heat, some do not; these are very difficult experiments.
(The energy stored in a capacitor (Joules) is : 1/2 CV^2. Assume V = 0.1V, C = 1 microfarad/cm^2)
MervinFerd (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted to previous correct statement that observed temperature changes are consistent with HH

message: Here's the sentence:   "The model is proposed as an alternative to the Hodgkin–Huxley model[2] in which action potentials: voltage-gated ion channels in the membrane open and allow sodium ions to enter the cell (inward current)."
What is the colon following the word "potentials"? It seems to imply a verb; however, what is the verb in question? The general reader wants to know.--75.164.155.194 (talk) 02:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken sentence in first paragraph