Faster, Smaller, Better: Does Physics Put an Upper Limit on Brain Efficiency?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Just as shrinking transistors makes computers more powerful, brains with smaller components could in principle pack in more power and become faster. The human neuron, however—and in particular, its long “tail,” called an axon—may already be at (or close to) their physical limit.

Axons are the nervous system’s telegraph wires, enabling neurons to form networks. When a neuron fires, it sends an electrical signal down its axon, which then stimulates other neurons. The signal travels down the axon by opening ion channels embedded in the cellular membrane, letting ions pass through. When enough ions cross a channel, they change the voltage across the membrane, which in turn causes the nearby channels to open, propagating the signal in a domino effect.

In principle, our brains could evolve to have thinner axons, which would save space so that more neurons and more axons could pack in. Thinner axons would also consume less energy.

Nature, however, already seems to have made axons nearly as thin as they can be: any thinner, and the random opening of the channels would make axons too noisy, meaning that they would deliver too many signals when the neuron was not supposed to fire.

The problem is that ion channels are not precisely controllable. Instead, they open and close at random many times a second. Electrical signals only change the likelihood that they will open. In a typical axon the random opening of an ion channel does not have serious consequences, because the channel closes again before letting in too many ions (first animation).

If evolution made axons much thinner, however, the opening of a single ion channel would often create a spurious signal which then would travel down the axon. Too much of this noise would make the neuron unreliable.

— Davide Castelvecchi

 

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe