The Significance of the Poynting Vector: Difference between revisions
The Significance of the Poynting Vector |
format as a paper page: add {{Infobox paper}} with author/year/source and categories |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox paper | |||
| title = The Significance of the Poynting Vector | |||
| author = [[David Tombe]] | |||
| published = 2020 | |||
| url = https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338898407_The_Significance_of_the_Poynting_Vector | |||
}} | |||
==Abstract== | |||
We can multiply an electric field by a magnetic field to obtain the Poynting vector, S = E×H, and the product applies to the energy flow in electromagnetic radiation, where E is specifically an electric field that has been induced by time-varying electromagnetic induction. This is because the form of the Poynting vector follows from Ampère’s circuital law and Faraday’s law of time-varying electromagnetic induction. Although there is no known theoretical basis that would justify swapping the electromagnetic E field in S with an electrostatic E field, the dimensions of S would nevertheless remain unchanged if we did do so. As such, it has been asked whether or not the product E×H is predictive of any energy flow when an electrostatic field is superimposed upon a steady state magnetic field, or would it just amount to multiplying apples and bananas? | We can multiply an electric field by a magnetic field to obtain the Poynting vector, S = E×H, and the product applies to the energy flow in electromagnetic radiation, where E is specifically an electric field that has been induced by time-varying electromagnetic induction. This is because the form of the Poynting vector follows from Ampère’s circuital law and Faraday’s law of time-varying electromagnetic induction. Although there is no known theoretical basis that would justify swapping the electromagnetic E field in S with an electrostatic E field, the dimensions of S would nevertheless remain unchanged if we did do so. As such, it has been asked whether or not the product E×H is predictive of any energy flow when an electrostatic field is superimposed upon a steady state magnetic field, or would it just amount to multiplying apples and bananas? | ||
Click on this link, | Click on this link, | ||
[[Category:Scientific Paper|significance of the poynting vector]] | |||
[[Category:Aether|significance of the poynting vector]] | |||
Latest revision as of 07:07, 22 July 2026
| Scientific Paper | |
|---|---|
| Title | The Significance of the Poynting Vector |
| Read in full | https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338898407_The_Significance_of_the_Poynting_Vector |
| Author(s) | David Tombe |
| Published | 2020 |
Abstract
We can multiply an electric field by a magnetic field to obtain the Poynting vector, S = E×H, and the product applies to the energy flow in electromagnetic radiation, where E is specifically an electric field that has been induced by time-varying electromagnetic induction. This is because the form of the Poynting vector follows from Ampère’s circuital law and Faraday’s law of time-varying electromagnetic induction. Although there is no known theoretical basis that would justify swapping the electromagnetic E field in S with an electrostatic E field, the dimensions of S would nevertheless remain unchanged if we did do so. As such, it has been asked whether or not the product E×H is predictive of any energy flow when an electrostatic field is superimposed upon a steady state magnetic field, or would it just amount to multiplying apples and bananas? Click on this link,