Biology is about structure. Structures within structures. Organs within animals, tissues within organs, cells within tissues, and molecules, often proteins within cells. The structures are so complex that they can only be described by numbers. No numbers are of more importance than those that describe proteins. The numbers that describe coordinates of its atoms, often determined by Patterson functions (which are inverse Fourier Transforms of intensities) of crystal diffraction. Without these numbers, structural biology would hardly exist. Without numbers, engineering would not exist. Numbers are surely needed by the engineers who produce the x-rays diffracting from atoms of protein crystals. Devices of engineering have function. They are built to implement equations. Engineering devices use structures to implement equations, when power is supplied at the right places, that produces appropriate flows. Flows are the essence of life. Equilibrium means death in most living systems. Flows in biological structures are hard to analyze because we do not know input output equations in advance. Sometimes we do not know their function. Flows, forces, and structures of life (like those of engineering) are related by field equations of conservation laws, partial differential equations, constrained by location and properties of structures. Constraints are boundary conditions located on the complicated domain of biological structure. Dealing with this complexity is simplified if one systematically analyzes structure using the most general field theory known, electricity described by the Maxwell equations, without significant known error. Currents are involved because flows of biology usually involve migration of charges, convection of water and solutes, diffusion of ions that form the plasma of life, and their interactions. Interactions can dominate function. Here I show how a few complex structures can be understood in engineering detail. This approach may be useful in dealing with biological and medical issues in many other cases. In one limited case—the clearance of a toxic waste (potassium ions) from the optic nerve—this approach seems to have succeeded.

The Maxwell equations of electrodynamics describe electrical and magnetic forces with great accuracy in the vacuum of space. But the equations of electrodynamics applied to material systems are usually written in a way that obscures their accuracy. The usual formulation of the Maxwell equations includes a dielectric constant as a single real number that grossly over-approximates the actual properties of matter, particularly liquid matter so important in applications of electrodynamics to biology and chemistry. We rewrite two Maxwell equations here to make clear the precision of the Maxwell equations in the presence or absence of matter. We discuss and derive two well known corollaries that are as universal and precise as the Maxwell equations themselves: (1) a continuity equation that relates charge and flux and (2) a conservation equation in which total current never accumulates at all. The total current is the right hand side of the Ampere-Maxwell law. Total current is perfectly incompressible. It is conserved exactly, everywhere and at every time, independent of the microphysics of charge conduction. The total current combines the flux of charges and the ethereal current. The ethereal current \varepsilon_{o\ }\sfrac{\partial\mathbf{E}}{\partial t}\ exists everywhere, including the interior of atoms, because it is a property of space, not matter. The ethereal current exists, and thus flows, in a vacuum devoid of mass. The ethereal current is a consequence of the relativistic (Lorentz) invariance of charge. Charge does not change even if it moves at speeds approaching the velocity of light. Total current has properties quite distinct from flux of mass because of the ethereal current. Most strikingly, in the one dimensional unbranched systems of electronic circuits and biological ion channels, the total current is independent of location, even if the flux of charges varies a great deal. Indeed, the Maxwell equations—and thus conservation of total current—act as a perfect low pass spatial filter, converting the infinite variation of (the Brownian model of) thermal motion of charges to the zero variation of the total current.

The name PNP was introduced by Eisenberg and Chen because it has important physical meaning beyond being the first letters of Poisson-Nernst-Planck. PNP also means Positive-Negative-Positive, the signs of majority current carriers in different regions of a PNP bipolar transistor. PNP transistors are two diodes in series PN + NP that rectify by changing the shape of the electric field. Transistors can function as quite different types of nonlinear devices by changing the shape of the electric field. Those realities motivated Eisenberg and Chen to introduce the name PNP in 1993.The pun “PNP = Poisson-Nernst-Planck = Positive-Negative-Positive” has physical content. It suggests that Poisson-Nernst-Planck systems like open ionic channels cannot be assumed to have constant electric fields. Indeed, the equations of electrodynamics make it more or less impossible that a channel have a constant electric field, if there is permanent charge nearby. The electric field must be studied and computed because its change of shape is unavoidable for charged channels, and the shape of the electric field is likely to be important in the function of biological systems, as it is in semiconductor systems.

Electrodynamics is usually written using polarization fields to describe changes in distribution of charge as electric fields change. This approach does not specify polarization fields uniquely from electrical measurements. Many polarization fields will produce the same electrodynamic forces and flows because only divergence of polarization enters Maxwell’s first equation, relating charge and electric field. The curl of any function can be added to a polarization field without changing the electric field at all. The divergence of the curl is always zero. To be unique, models must describe the charge distribution and how it varies. I propose a different paradigm to describe field dependent charge, i.e., the phenomenon of polarization. This operational definition of polarization has worked well in biophysics for fifty years, where a field dependent, time dependent polarization provides gating current that makes neurons respond sensitively to voltage. Theoretical estimates of polarization computed with this definition fit experimental data. I propose that operational definition be used to define polarization charge in general. Charge movement needs to be computed from a combination of electrodynamics and mechanics because ‘everything interacts with everything else’. The classical polarization field need not enter into that treatment at all. When nothing is known about polarization, it is necessary to use an approximate representation with a dielectric constant that is a single real positive number. This approximation allows important results in some cases, e.g., design of integrated circuits in silicon semiconductors, but can be seriously misleading in other cases, e.g., ionic solutions.