Mind Control

Introduction

Does the mind influence the outcome of an experiment? This question has fascinated scientists, philosophers, and curious minds for generations. Some believe the mind is a passive observer — watching but never interfering. Others suspect that the mind might play a more active role, perhaps influencing outcomes in ways we don't yet understand.

In this article, we aim to take the question seriously, not as a matter of superstition or science fiction, but as a legitimate scientific challenge. If we can show, conclusively, that the mind does not influence experimental outcomes, that would be a major finding. But if we find that the mind does influence results — especially in experiments involving telepathy or similar psychic phenomena — then we may be forced to rethink our understanding of consciousness, physics, and reality itself.

The Case for Investigation

Some might say this is a silly question — that science has already answered it. But has it? Most experiments assume that observers and measuring devices are entirely separate from the system being measured. Quantum mechanics, however, has forced us to reconsider that assumption. The measurement problem — the question of what causes a quantum system to 'collapse' into one outcome — remains unresolved.

Some respected physicists, including John von Neumann, Eugene Wigner, and Roger Penrose, have explored the idea that consciousness might play a role in measurement. While not universally accepted, these ideas suggest that the mind should not be ruled out a priori.

Why This Matters

If the mind can influence an experiment, then we are no longer dealing with a closed, objective system. It would mean that observation, intention, and possibly even emotion or thought could play a role in physical outcomes. That challenges the foundation of objective measurement and could have profound implications across physics, neuroscience, and philosophy.

On the other hand, if experiments can rigorously rule out any mind-based influence, we gain clarity and confidence in our understanding of measurement and reality. Either way, we learn something important.

Proposed Experiments

• Telepathy Tests: Two individuals placed in separate, shielded rooms attempt to share thoughts. Their brain activity is monitored in real-time to detect any unusual synchronization or shared information.
• Observer Effect Studies: Compare outcomes of quantum experiments where observers are told what to expect versus ones where they are not. Does expectation subtly influence the results?
• Random Number Generators (RNGs): Measure whether focused intention can alter the statistical output of RNGs over time.
• Two-Person Brain Interface: Using EEG devices, test for real-time correlations between the brainwaves of two people engaged in intentional mental communication.

Variables to Rule Out

For any of these experiments to be credible, we must rigorously rule out ordinary sources of influence. These include:

• Body language and subtle movements,
• Sound leakage or environmental noise,
• Shared prior knowledge or expectation, and
• Timing cues or unintentional signaling.

Experiments should be conducted in shielded rooms, with randomization, blind protocols, and automated data logging to eliminate human bias.

Biological Clues to Mental Interaction

Nature offers compelling hints that some form of non-verbal, possibly field-based communication may exist:

• Trees communicate through root networks and possibly even electromagnetic signaling.
• Bacteria coordinate behavior through chemical signaling and possibly electrical fields.
• Insects like bees operate with apparent collective intelligence.
• Humans share DNA with bacteria, and harbor vast microbial ecosystems in the gut and on the skin.

These microbes affect our mood, cognition, and behavior — possibly not just chemically, but through collective field interactions. The idea that we are partly shaped, or even directed, by microbial collective intelligence deserves attention.

A speculative but testable hypothesis is that some behavioral phenomena — including extreme examples — may be linked to microbial influence. For instance, both Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler suffered from severe stomach problems. Could certain strains of gut bacteria — shaped by stress, diet, or illness — influence mood, aggression, or cognition? Could there be such a thing as 'evil bacteria'? We don't know — but science can help us find out.

Field Interactions and the Ether

Poynting theory shows us that energy in electrical circuits does not flow through the wires themselves, but in the space around them — a field interaction. This points to a more universal principle: field dynamics, not particles alone, govern energy transfer and interaction.

If every wire transmits energy through the surrounding field space — possibly even into the vacuum or what might once have been called the 'ether' — then it's plausible that biological systems, thoughts, and even conscious states interact with this shared field. Poynting theory provides a firm grounding for believing that field-based interactions could extend beyond classical systems and into the realm of biology and consciousness.

Conclusion

Whether the mind plays a role in shaping reality is still an open question. But it's one we can, and should, explore scientifically. Either outcome — mind influencing matter, or not — will move our understanding forward.

We suggest a renewed research effort, grounded in physics, neuroscience, and careful experiment design. Let’s find out what role, if any, the mind truly plays. The results could be revolutionary.

Let the evidence lead the way.

References

• Penrose, R. (1994). Shadows of the Mind. Oxford University Press.
• Wigner, E.P. (1961). Remarks on the Mind–Body Question. Symmetries and Reflections, Indiana University Press.
• Radin, D. (2006). Entangled Minds. Paraview Pocket Books. https://www.deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm
• McTaggart, L. (2001). The Field: The Quest for the Secret Force of the Universe. HarperCollins.
• Libet, B. (1999). Do We Have Free Will? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(8–9), 47–57.
• Sheldrake, R. (2003). The Sense of Being Stared At. Crown Publishing Group.

The Domino Exploration

Introduction

This article uses dominoes as an analogy to explore how potential energy and kinetic energy interact and transform. The goal is to offer a simple yet powerful way for teachers and students to visualize fundamental physics concepts.

Rather than relying on the traditional water tank and pipe analogy often used in electrical circuit explanations, this approach provides a fresh, intuitive mental image. By thinking in terms of dominoes — which store energy when upright and release it when falling — we can gain insight into a wide range of physical systems, from lasers and electric currents to waves and quantum states.

The aim is not to replace existing teaching tools but to add another helpful model to the educator’s toolbox, encouraging deeper understanding through imaginative thinking.

1. The Laser Analogy

Imagine you carefully stand up 100 dominoes on a table. Each domino now holds stored potential energy. Then, instead of tipping one over, you shake the table violently. All the dominoes collapse at once.

This is similar to how a laser works: atoms are pumped into a high-energy state (like the upright dominoes), and when triggered, they release their energy in a coordinated burst. It’s the sudden conversion of potential energy into kinetic energy, happening simultaneously across the system.

2. Refining the Analogy

To make the analogy more accurate, imagine not shaking the table but tipping just one domino. That domino falls and knocks over the next, and so on — a neat, synchronized chain reaction.

This is closer to the real laser mechanism:

• Each atom is in an excited state (like a standing domino).
• A photon stimulates the first atom to emit another photon (tipping the first domino).
• That emission stimulates the next atom, and the process continues.

Instead of chaos, this is a precise, ordered release of energy — like a laser beam, where all photons are in sync.

3. The Electrical Engineering Connection

In basic electrical engineering, current in a wire is often explained by saying one electron pushes the next — a chain of motion.

This is a perfect fit for the domino model:

• One electron exerts a force on the next, which pushes the next, just like each domino tips the one after it.
• The current is the result of sequential interactions, just like the energy transfer in the domino line.

4. Dominoes as a Wave Analogy

The falling dominoes can also represent waves. Each domino doesn’t move forward, but the disturbance does — just like in a wave.

In water waves or sound waves, particles vibrate in place while the energy travels through the medium. In the domino chain, each one topples in place, but the motion — the disturbance — moves along the line.

5. Simplifying the Model

To keep things clear, we assume each domino has only two energy states:

• Potential energy (when standing),
• Kinetic energy (when falling).

We ignore any extra complexities such as torque, heat, or energy loss. This lets us focus purely on the core idea: a system of stored energy being transformed and transferred in a predictable, mechanical sequence.

6. How Classical Mechanics Views Energy: Laplace and Hamilton

In classical physics:

• Potential energy is the energy of position — like the raised domino.
• Kinetic energy is the energy of motion — like the falling domino.

Pierre-Simon Laplace envisioned a deterministic universe where, if we know all positions and velocities, we can predict everything. William Rowan Hamilton reformulated this idea using energy itself as the central concept. His Hamiltonian function tracks the total energy of a system and is still used today, even in quantum mechanics.

In our analogy, the system starts with all potential energy (upright dominoes), and converts it to kinetic energy (falling dominoes) without losing any energy. That’s a beautifully simple example of energy conservation in action.

7. Quantum Mechanics: Energy Gets Weird

Quantum mechanics keeps the potential/kinetic distinction, but brings in new ideas:

• Particles don’t have definite positions or velocities until observed.
• They exist in probability waves described by wavefunctions.
• The Hamiltonian becomes an operator that determines how these wavefunctions evolve.

In our analogy:

• A raised domino is like a quantum system in an excited energy state.
• A falling domino is like a photon being released.
• But a quantum domino might be both standing and falling until observed.
• Dominoes can also be entangled — meaning their fates are linked, even across great distances.

8. Bridging the Concepts

In summary:

• Classical mechanics treats energy as something clean and trackable — like a row of dominoes falling in sequence.
• Electrical engineering models current in a similar way — each particle pushing the next.
• Quantum mechanics keeps the energy structure but adds unpredictability and interconnectedness.

The domino analogy forms a bridge between these domains. It simplifies, yet offers a platform to deepen our understanding as we go.

Conclusions

• Dominoes are an intuitive teaching tool for visualizing energy transformation and transfer.
• They offer strong analogies for lasers, electrical currents, and wave motion.
• When extended, they even help us approach quantum behavior, albeit in simplified form.
• This model complements — rather than replaces — other teaching metaphors like water tanks or mechanical systems.
• Most importantly, it encourages imaginative thinking and invites new ways to see the physics that underlie our world.

References and Further Reading

• Feynman Lectures on Physics – Energy Transfer
• HyperPhysics – Laser Operation
• Veritasium – How Current Actually Flows
• MIT – Domino Computing Logic
• Khan Academy – Energy Levels of Electrons

Gravity, The Rhythm of the Universe by Jim Redgewell

Deep Thinking on Circuits

Understanding Resistors as Field Disruptors through Poynting Theory and Tugboat Theory

Resistors as Field Disruptors

In the traditional view of electric circuits, resistors are passive elements that “oppose” current and convert energy into heat. But if we examine them through the lens of Poynting theory (PT), and integrate insights from Tugboat Theory, a much deeper picture emerges.

According to Poynting theory, energy flows through the space around a circuit via the Poynting vector:

\[ \vec{S} = \vec{E} \times \vec{B} \]

This vector describes how electromagnetic energy moves in space, determined by the electric field \( \vec{E} \) and magnetic field \( \vec{B} \). Crucially, energy doesn't travel through the wire — it moves alongside it, guided by the field structure.

A resistor, then, does not merely block this energy — it acts as a coherence damper. When the field energy enters the region of the resistor, the synchronized relationship between \( \vec{E} \) and \( \vec{B} \) begins to break down. The fields still exist, but they lose the structured wavefronts necessary for forward energy propagation. Instead, the energy becomes thermal motion, i.e., heat.

In this sense, resistors are localized decoherence zones: places where the coherent memory of the electromagnetic field is deliberately erased.

Does a Resistor Slow Propagation?

A natural question follows: if resistors disrupt the fields, do they also slow the speed of energy propagation?

The answer is nuanced.

• The speed of field propagation in space is given by: \[ v = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\varepsilon \mu}} \] where \( \varepsilon \) and \( \mu \) are the permittivity and permeability of the medium. In vacuum or air, this speed is close to the speed of light, and it is not directly affected by the resistor.
• However, a resistor reduces the amplitude of the energy flux and disrupts phase coherence. It transforms structured field energy into unstructured heat, which slows the effective delivery of usable energy.
• In other words, the wavefront speed remains constant, but the energy transmission efficiency drops significantly.

In Tugboat Theory terms, the resistor acts like a place where the tugboats forget which direction to pull. The synchronization is lost, and the field stops “handing off” energy in a coordinated way.

Conclusion

Resistors are more than components that oppose current. They are field disruptors — devices that take coherent, synchronized electromagnetic energy and convert it into disorganized thermal motion. While they don't reduce the speed of electromagnetic field propagation in the surrounding space, they dampen the ability of the field to carry coherent energy forward.

This behavior aligns beautifully with Tugboat Theory's view that current and energy transfer are not about particles flowing like water, but about field memory and phase synchronization. A resistor is where that memory ends.

By reinterpreting circuit elements in this way, we open the door to a more unified understanding of classical and quantum electrical behavior, where fields — not wires — carry the truth.

References and Further Reading

• John H. Poynting (1884), “On the Transfer of Energy in the Electromagnetic Field,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.1884.0016
• MIT OpenCourseWare – Lecture on Poynting Vector and Energy Transfer https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/6-013-electromagnetics-and-applications-fall-2005/resources/lecture-20-electromagnetic-energy-and-poynting-vector/
• Griffiths, D. J., Introduction to Electrodynamics, 4th Ed. Cambridge University Press.
• Veritasium: “Where Does the Energy Go in an Electric Circuit?” (YouTube) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHIhgxav9LY
• James Redgewell, “Tugboat Theory and Vacuum Memory,” 2025 https://jredgewell.blogspot.com/

Entanglement as Field Synchronization

How Wires, Cavities, and Vacuum May All Serve as Media for Quantum Memory

Introduction

Quantum entanglement is often portrayed as a mysterious link between particles across space — an instantaneous “spooky action at a distance.” But what if this strangeness could be reframed through a different lens — not as a transmission of information, but as the preservation of a shared field state?

Building on the ideas of field synchronization, vacuum memory, and the role of conductors as guides of phase and energy, this article explores the hypothesis that quantum entanglement is a manifestation of field phase coherence across a shared medium.

1. Two Media, One Purpose

We begin by distinguishing two kinds of physical media:

• Conducting media — such as wires or waveguides — which shape, contain, and preserve phase relationships in guided field systems.
• Vacuum space — which, though seemingly empty, has measurable properties like permittivity and permeability and serves as a propagation medium for fields and virtual particles.

Both media can support quantum coherence under the right conditions. In this view, entanglement is not limited to a particle-particle connection. It is a phase-locked condition maintained across a continuous field, whether that field propagates through a wire, cavity, or space itself.

2. Entanglement in Wires and Cavities

Quantum information systems already demonstrate that entanglement can be engineered and maintained through artificial media:

• Superconducting qubits use microwave cavities to maintain entanglement.
• Spin qubits in semiconductors are coupled via tunneling paths and gate-defined fields.
• In photonic waveguides, entangled photons maintain correlation by propagating in synchronized modes.

These systems confirm that wires and cavities can act as entanglement media, provided they preserve the necessary field coherence.

3. Entanglement in Vacuum: The Space Between

Vacuum-based entanglement, such as in free-space photon experiments, seems even more mysterious. But in quantum field theory, even vacuum is not “empty” — it contains fluctuations, zero-point energy, and field modes that span all space.

This opens a critical possibility:

Vacuum space is itself a medium — a quantum field substrate — that supports long-range phase correlation.

Entangled particles do not exchange information faster than light; instead, they remain synchronized through their shared field history, which is imprinted on the vacuum state.

In this picture, the nonlocality of entanglement is not magical. It reflects the fact that both particles are expressions of a common field mode — a single coherent entity stretched across space.

4. The Field Memory Hypothesis

Combining these insights, we propose:

Quantum entanglement is a synchronization of field phase across a shared medium, governed by a persistent memory of joint origin.

This aligns naturally with Tugboat Theory’s concept of field delay and synchronization. If the vacuum itself carries phase memory (analogous to a resonant structure), then entanglement simply reflects a preserved resonance condition between field-based excitations.

Just as wires stabilize electromagnetic phase in a classical circuit, vacuum may stabilize quantum phase across spacetime.

5. Implications and Next Steps

• Entanglement is medium-dependent: different media preserve field synchronization to different degrees, determining the robustness of entanglement.
• Spacetime coherence matters: field synchronization requires not just space-like proximity, but a compatible phase structure — possibly affected by gravity, acceleration, or decoherence.
• Gravity and entanglement may connect: if gravity is a synchronization mechanism, it may also influence entanglement through subtle phase shifts in the vacuum medium.

Conclusion

Rather than a violation of classical causality, quantum entanglement may be a testament to the continuity of the quantum field itself — a phenomenon of phase coherence extending across any medium capable of storing and preserving that memory.

Wires do it. Cavities do it. And the vacuum, it seems, does it too.

References and Further Reading

• Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., & Rosen, N. (1935). “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?” Physical Review, 47(10), 777–780. Link
• Zeilinger, A. et al. (2007). “Long-distance free-space distribution of entangled photons.” Physical Review Letters. Link
• Aspect, A. et al. (1982). “Experimental Tests of Realistic Local Theories via Bell’s Theorem.” Physical Review Letters, 49, 91–94. Link
• Vedral, V. (2003). “Entanglement in the Second Quantization Formalism.” Central European Journal of Physics. arXiv
• Susskind, L., & Friedman, A. (2014). Quantum Mechanics: The Theoretical Minimum. Penguin Books.
• James Redgewell, “Tugboat Theory and the Field Synchronization of Matter,” 2025. [Author's Blog]

Poynting Theory Paradox

How a Simple Circuit Thought Experiment Reveals the Strange Reality of Energy Flow

Introduction

Imagine this setup: you connect a lightbulb to a power source using a pair of wires. The lightbulb is only 10 feet away from the power source, but instead of using a direct path, you run the wires in a loop that stretches out to a full mile before coming back. You flick the switch — and the bulb lights up.

But this raises a confusing question:
Did the energy take the short 10-foot path through the air, or the long 1-mile journey through the wires?

Most people assume the energy somehow "jumps" the short physical gap. But Poynting theory (PT) gives a very different and more accurate answer — and it reveals something profoundly unintuitive about how circuits really work.

The Misconception: Energy Flows Through the Wire

In standard explanations, energy is pictured as moving through the wire — as if electrons zip along like water in a pipe. This picture is wrong in both speed and substance:

• Electrons move very slowly (inches per minute in DC).
• In AC, they simply wiggle back and forth.
• The bulb lights up before any single electron from the power source gets near it.

So what actually delivers energy to the bulb?

Poynting Theory: Fields Deliver Energy Through Space

Poynting theory, developed by John Henry Poynting in the 1880s, describes energy flow in electromagnetic systems using the Poynting vector:

\[ \vec{S} = \vec{E} \times \vec{B} \]

This cross product of the electric field \( \vec{E} \) and magnetic field \( \vec{B} \) gives a directional energy flow vector \( \vec{S} \) — pointing not along the wire, but into the space around it.

So where does the energy flow?

• It flows through the space surrounding the wires, following the guided geometry of the circuit.
• The energy doesn’t go “through” the wire like fluid; it moves alongside it, riding the fields shaped by voltage and current.

In our case, the mile-long wires determine the energy’s route — not the 10-foot physical distance between power source and bulb. The energy flows around the entire loop, taking the long way.

Why the Bulb Doesn’t Light Instantly

Even though the bulb is physically close, it doesn’t receive power until the electromagnetic field has propagated through the entire wire path. This propagation occurs at nearly the speed of light, but it still requires the field to reach the load through the full circuit geometry.

Energy doesn't care about physical distance — it follows the path defined by the fields, not by proximity.

Implications for Our Understanding of Circuits

• Wires are guides for fields, not pipelines for energy.
• Energy flows in the space around the wire, directed by the electric and magnetic field structure.
• Wire length matters: longer wires shape larger and more complex field geometries.
• Circuit behavior is field-driven; “current” is a local response to field propagation.
• This view aligns with our understanding of antennas, RF systems, and wireless energy transfer.

Conclusion: The Long Way Is the Real Way

The 10-foot bulb, 1-mile wire paradox illustrates a deep truth: electricity is a field phenomenon, not a matter of particles traveling from source to load. Poynting theory shows that the energy flows through the space around the wires, following the circuit path defined by their shape, not their proximity.

So the next time someone asks where the energy flows, you can smile and say:

“It takes the long way — through the fields.”

References and Further Reading

• J.H. Poynting, “On the Transfer of Energy in the Electromagnetic Field,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 1884. DOI link
• MIT OpenCourseWare – Electromagnetic Energy and Poynting Vector: MIT Lecture
• “Where Does the Energy Flow in a Circuit?” by Veritasium (YouTube): Watch here
• Purcell & Morin, *Electricity and Magnetism*, 3rd Edition, Cambridge University Press
• James Redgewell, “Deep Thinking on Capacitive and Inductive Coupling in Electrical Circuits, Part 5,” 2025. [Author's Blog]

Photon Motion, the Poynting Vector, and Field Collapse – Part 5

Introduction

From the standpoint of everyday electrical engineering, applying Poynting theory to practical circuit analysis can seem like a very silly idea. In most situations, it adds unnecessary complexity, offers no practical benefit for design, and risks confusing students or engineers who are simply trying to work with voltage, current, and resistance.

However, from the standpoint of fundamental physics, Poynting theory is not only valid — it is essential. It provides a window into how energy actually flows in and around electrical systems. It reveals that current and energy propagation are not confined to the wires themselves, but arise from deeper field interactions.

For this reason, I strongly encourage research scientists and theorists to study Poynting’s framework thoroughly. It holds important clues to the nature of charge, field propagation, and the medium through which all electromagnetic phenomena take place — insights that may one day reshape how we understand matter, energy, and motion.

What Wires Actually Do

Wires do not carry energy — they guide and shape the field medium so that energy can propagate effectively. They allow us to stabilize, phase-lock, and interface with the field, but the actual transmission of energy occurs in the space around them, as directed by the surrounding field configuration. Wires define the geometry of the fields, anchor charge behavior, and serve as the interface between external control and field response. They are not passive channels but structured environments that enable controlled phase propagation.

DC Current as Field Phase Propagation

Even in the case of direct current (DC), the underlying mechanism of energy propagation is field-based. While electrons do drift slowly through a conductor, the energy and influence of the current propagate at nearly the speed of light. This indicates that current is not the motion of electrons but the result of a cascade of local field reconfigurations — a stepwise ripple of field phase that travels through the conductor.

In this model, the electric field in a DC circuit is not static but a rotating field phase that continues to push forward, much like how a photon propagates through free space. The difference is that in a conductor, this phase propagation is compressed and structured by the material properties of the wire.

Rethinking Current: The Virtual Charge Boson

Current is traditionally measured in amperes, defined as the amount of electric charge passing a point per second. This has long been interpreted as electrons physically moving through the wire. But in this field-based model, electrons play a minimal role in actual energy transfer.

Instead, current is seen as the propagation of charge through a field-based entity — a virtual particle-like configuration — which we might call a virtual charge boson. This boson is not a physical particle but a stable structure in the field, a rotating phase pattern that carries charge from one place to another.

The virtual charge boson travels through the wire in a stepwise manner, reconfiguring the field as it moves. It behaves like a soliton or a localized pulse of electric phase — a structured rotation of the field that maintains its shape and direction as it propagates.

This explains why current appears to flow quickly, even though electrons barely move. What flows is not matter but field rotation. The amperes we measure may be counting how many of these virtual charge bosons pass a point per second, not how many electrons.

Current as Field Regeneration in the Conductor

In agreement with the Poynting theory, we can reframe electric current as a process of field regeneration, rather than the movement of individual charged particles.

When an electric charge moves through a conductor, it creates a magnetic field around the wire. This is a well-known and measurable effect. But what happens when that magnetic field collapses — for instance, when the current stops or changes direction?

According to the Poynting theory, that collapsing magnetic field induces a new electric field. In this model, that induced electric field isn't just a side effect — it is a re-creation of the original charge influence, reappearing slightly displaced along the conductor. In other words:

The magnetic field temporarily stores the energy of the moving charge, and when it collapses, it releases that energy back into the medium as a new electric phase — effectively regenerating the charge's influence further along the wire.

This cycle — electric field creating magnetic field, magnetic field regenerating electric field — forms a kind of stepwise pulse that carries energy and charge without requiring any actual particles to travel far. It behaves much like the field-pulse motion of a photon.

What this suggests is profound:

• The conductor is a medium, not just a passive channel.
• The medium itself supports field-based charge regeneration, step by step.
• Electric current is not a flow of material electrons, but a propagating sequence of field phase transitions.

This interpretation fits seamlessly with the earlier concept of the virtual charge boson: a rotating field configuration that maintains the characteristics of charge as it travels. What we observe as current is actually a field-based phenomenon — and the conductor is the structured space in which this rotational energy propagates.

Conclusion

In this article, we’ve challenged the conventional view of current and voltage by exploring the idea that electric current is not a flow of electrons but a field-based process — a stepwise rotation and regeneration of electromagnetic phase.

We proposed that:

• Wires act as field guides, not charge pipelines.
• Even DC current propagates like a photon, through discrete field phase shifts.
• Current may be carried by a virtual charge boson — a rotating field configuration.
• In agreement with Poynting theory, a collapsing magnetic field can regenerate the electric charge that created it, reinforcing the idea that conductors are active mediums.
• Finally, while Poynting theory may not be practical for engineering work, it holds critical value for theoretical physics.

Together, these ideas represent a shift in perspective — away from particles moving through wires, and toward fields rotating through structured space. They open the door to new questions, and possibly, new technologies.

References

• Part 1 – Photon Motion, the Poynting Vector, and Field Collapse
• Part 2 – Photon Motion, the Poynting Vector, and Field Collapse
• Part 3 – Photon Motion, the Poynting Vector, and Field Collapse
• Part 4 – Photon Motion, the Poynting Vector, and Field Collapse
• James Clerk Maxwell’s Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism
• J. H. Poynting, “On the Transfer of Energy in the Electromagnetic Field” (1884)