Science disciplines attempt to discover the infinitely complex nature in a disciplinary approach. To describe a well defined range of phenomena, we use approximations and omissions, and we create abstractions which can then be described by known laws using the universal language of mathematics. Newton’s laws deal with masses only. We use the abstraction ”charge” and ”charge carrier” for electrons, protons, ions, etc., and we can describe the electricity-related abstract features of the carriers. We must not forget, however, that those laws have been derived for abstractions based on approximations and omissions, and so they also have their range of validity. To apply laws from different fields of science, we must scrutinize whether all laws we use are applied within their range of validity. ”Biological laws are much more difficult to find than physical ones” [4]. We add that mainly because those laws cannot be uniquely mapped to the disciplines of physics.
Classical physics classified phenomena into disciplines that largely described nature well. Modern physics has revealed new relationships, but they have also organically integrated into the fabric of science as a whole. To understand the living organism, in the spirit of R.P. Feynman, we must make ”excursions” between disciplines. E. Schrödinger expressed his conviction that no new force or unknown interaction is emerging; only a previously unknown regularity concept must be found, then the non-ordinary laws organically integrate into the fabric of science, together with the already known laws. In this chapter, we make an attempt to find such a concept in the hope that scrutinizing the features of ions leads to a solution.
Regarding ions, separately, we can handle their charge and mass well, we know the relevant laws. Their properties are analogous to the particle-wave duality: depending on the interaction (i.e. the measurement method), we see an ion as either a charge or a mass. We see the same object, but we measure it based on the concepts of different disciplines. Therefore, we must connect charge and mass, just like space and time in the case of relativity. They do not exist independently of each other and their combined behavior differs from what we expect based on the classical disciplinary approach. Connecting two abstract notions generally result in counter-intuitive experiences. Interestingly, similar to relativity, the velocity establishes the connection between the two quantities here.
Furthermore, we must introduce a connection for the currents represented by ions, such as the one introduced by statistical mechanics when connecting the discrete and the continuum approaches. However, we base the correspondence on geometric considerations and, due to the unseparable connection between the two properties, we cannot apply statistical laws based on one property in an unchanged form. Moreover, in most biological cases, the number of particles involved are so small that their statistical interpretation is severely limited. The fundamental approximation of physics that the force field acts on the particle, but the particle’s effect on the field is negligible, is not met. In some cases, closed spaces give rise to counterforces that fundamentally change the processes taking place. Ignoring these properties of living systems has led to the erroneous statement that science cannot describe living matter and its processes. Desribing living matter is undoubtedly more complicated than describing inanimate nature and requires a revision of several approximations, but it is possible. Physics is much more than a collection of formulas concluded for inanimate matter and valid within the frames of a discipline that can be applied without thinking about whether they can bw applied to living matter.