Jump to content

Neuroscience and Physicsts


Recommended Posts

As a Neuroscientists, I also consider myself a Physicists. You have different sides of Neuroscience, you have the Neuroanatomical side of it. Where research is done on how different parts of the brain works. You have the cellular side of it which neurons are studied as a biological system or units, in Neurobiology. You have the chemical side of it in Neurochemistry and Neuropharmacology. You also have the mixture of biology and philosophical side to it, where Neuroscience meets Philosophy, were one talks about how we perceives the world and how it relates to our minds and brains.

 

However, you also have the side.. best defined by physical laws and biophysics of the neurons. This is what I do.. studying.

 

Neural Networks, Resistance, Currents, Capacitance, Phospholipid nonconductance and dynamics and effects on neuronal systems. Cellular Voltage, Equivalent-Cylinder Models and Neuronal systems, Dendritic Dynamics and Kinetics. Membrane potentials, frequencies, quantum physics and microtubule dynamics, ect

 

Single Dimensional Membrane Potential, and Mechanisms. Role of Complex Mechanics and Nerve Cell Physiology. Active propagation of nerve signals. Nerve cell protein dynamics, Presynaptic Mechanics and Synaptic Transmissions. Excitatory transmission, magnetic fields involving transmission. Nerve cell potentiation. Physics of Mechanoreceptors.

 

A lot more interesting topics I didn't cover..

 

Overall goal is..

Using this to understand how we think, create images in our heads ect.

 

Also more interesting topics in this field, Neural Networking and applications of Neural Engineering, that is done.

Edited by AndresKiani
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really understand the point of this post. Also you'd be wrong to consider yourself as a physicist, you're a neuroscientist. You apply physics to understand the brain. Electrical engineers apply physics to create machines. Physicists use maths to understand and formulate laws of physics but that doesn't mean they're mathematicians. I use Euler's formula to get a general solution to a differential equation with imaginary numbers in quantum wave theory. This helps be understand quantum wave theory but I don't understand or know the proof behind Euler's formula. I'd have to be very stupid and arrogant to go around classifying myself as a mathematician. It goes the other way. We use physics to understand vascular pressure difference. Surgeons don't really understand the physics behind it but i'd prefer a surgeon operating on me to a physicist. If we follow your logic all the way through: you use words to read up on the brain and to write up your report... does that mean you're a linguist as well??? You use maths to quantify experiments and express measurements....does that mean you're a mathematician as well??? You use computers to process and present data.... does that mean you're a computer scientist as well????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using OP's criteria, any natural scientist is a physicist. We just use different levels of abstraction and simplifications. Which makes it a rather pointless claim, no?

 

This is where we get into definitions. From my point of view if you try to look into physics and further the understanding of physics then you're a physicist. If you use physics to explain something like biology it doesn't mean you're a physicist. Sure scientists cross disciplines but you're a scientist of the field you are trying to further the understanding of. If not I may as well say I was a linguist for using words in my study of physics.

Where just having a discussion.

This adds nothing. Your whole contribution to this thread has been nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This is where we get into definitions. From my point of view if you try to look into physics and further the understanding of physics then you're a physicist. If you use physics to explain something like biology it doesn't mean you're a physicist. Sure scientists cross disciplines but you're a scientist of the field you are trying to further the understanding of. If not I may as well say I was a linguist for using words in my study of physics.

This adds nothing. Your whole contribution to this thread has been nothing.

 

It was asked "What's the point of this thread", the point of this thread was to have a discussion. This is a forum, we have discussions on forums, no need for a forum police. This was never at any point a debate.., unless you want to turn it into one, and we can go there if you want.

I agree with you that I'm not a pure physics major, and furthering the pure science of physics is not my goal or even interest. All I do is use physical principles to further Neuroscience and our understanding of the brain.

 

However, this is most of what I study, is physics and how I can integrate into Neuroscience. This is a big part of the field, my lab professor is a Physcists who studies Neuroscience, and my partners range from Biophysicists to Neuroscientists to Neurobiologists (who study purely anatomical and cellular structures at the view point of a biologists). With Neuroscience its very interdisciplinary, some Neuroscience is like psychology, they integrate psychology and Neuroscience. Others, like Neurobiologists are much more biologists than interdisciplinary scientists. Some are Neurochemists and Neuropharmacologists who work mostly with the chemicals of the brain and chemical principles to further Neuroscience.

 

I myself work mostly with dynamics and kinetics of nerve cells and use mostly physical principles to study and further brain research. My ultimate goal is neural networking and neural engineering for my Phd work.

Mind my typing errors, I'm on my phone and can careless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is true for almost all branches of biology. There is no clear line, however, physicist tend to work on physical phenomena and just happen to use biological substrates as experimental subject, whereas biologists are more interested in functions and physiology in a biological context and just happen to apply (sometimes badly) tools from other disciplines.

One distinguishing criterion (for students) tend to be whether you are able to generalize the underlying math (typical for more physics inclined people) or whether you are able to maintain a proper culture and are able to explain physiological effects (which often amounts to "why the $%%$#%# does the @#$@$@%@@ did that again?").

 

The hallmark for a truly interdisciplinary researcher is if neither side thinks you belong to them.

Edited by CharonY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is true for almost all branches of biology. There is no clear line, however, physicist tend to work on physical phenomena and just happen to use biological substrates as experimental subject, whereas biologists are more interested in functions and physiology in a biological context and just happen to apply (sometimes badly) tools from other disciplines.

One distinguishing criterion (for students) tend to be whether you are able to generalize the underlying math (typical for more physics inclined people) or whether you are able to maintain a proper culture and are able to explain physiological effects (which often amounts to "why the $%%$#%# does the @#$@$@%@@ did that again?").

 

The hallmark for a truly interdisciplinary researcher is if neither side thinks you belong to them.

Lol very true.. I agree completely agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.