2004/10/01 by Andrew Chubykalo, Augusto Espinoza, Rumen Tzonchev +1
Decision Sciences · Engineering · Physics and Astronomy · #Advanced Scientific and Engineering Studies #Non-Destructive Testing Techniques #Scientific Research and Discoveries #physics.gen-ph #physics.optics
paper · pdf · doi:10.1140/epjd/e2004-00135-x
published as The European Physical Journal D vol. 31 p.113-120 (2004) · Revtex-file vithout figures. To get the journal-pdf-file with figures, please, contact with [email protected]
openalex publication_date 2004/10/01 · arxiv created 2005/03/24 · arxiv updated 2009/12/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/28
It is shown that the generally accepted definition of the Poynting vector and the energy flux vector defined by means of the energy density of the electromagnetic field (Umov vector) lead to the prediction of the different results touching electromagnetic energy flux. The experiment shows that within the framework of the mentioned generally accepted definitions the Poynting vector adequately describes the electromagnetic energy flux unlike the Umov vector. Therefore one can conclude that a generally accepted definitions of the electromagnetic energy density and the Poynting vector, in general, are not always compatible.