See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/230902660

About Poynting's theorem

Article  in  European Journal of Physics · July 2000

DOI: 10.1088/0143-0807/13/3/003

CITATIONS READS

18 1,730

2 authors:

Ignacio Campos j. l. Jimenez

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
41 PUBLICATIONS   188 CITATIONS    74 PUBLICATIONS   382 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

this papaer is not mine View project

All content following this page was uploaded by j. l. Jimenez on 22 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

About Poynting's theorem

This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text.

1992 Eur. J. Phys. 13 117

(http://iopscience.iop.org/0143-0807/13/3/003)

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:

IP Address: 144.122.220.41
This content was downloaded on 13/03/2016 at 22:14

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

I About Poynting's theorem
I Campos and J L Jimenez
Abstract. We review the general question of the physical
interpretation ofPoynting's theorem and we compare two
typical derivations of it. One of these uses the work done
on a charge by an exrernol electromagnet field, while the
other considers the work done by the roral field, external
plus ser/-field; though this derivation is mathematically
consistent; it leads to difficult problems of interpretation.
1. lntroductlon
The principle of conservation of energy is one of the
most general and important in physics. Its general-
ization to include electromagnetic fields and charges
in interaction leads to Poynting's theorem:
+
where U = f (%E* B*/&) is the electromagnetic
energy density, E and B being the electric and magnetic
fields; S = (E x B)/& is the so-called Poynting vector
and j is the current density.
It is usual to interpret S a s an 'energy current' or as
kGX 'oui ibis inierpreiaiion is fuii of
difficulties.
In the first place it is easily seen that as a local flux
of energy the vector S is not uniquely defined. In fact
we could add to S any arbitrary divergenceless vector
and still satisfy equation (I). Thus some alternative
definitions for the local flux of energy have been
proposed (Slepian 1942, Lai 1981, Peters, 1982,
Romer 1982, Kobe 1982).
Besides, when S is used to calculate the electromag-
netic momentum of a classical model of the electron,
+
a factor appears in the so-called electromagnetic
mass and this is usually regarded as being inconsistent
with the special theory of relativity (Campos and
Jimenez 1986).
These are not the only problems with Sinterpreted
as a local energy flux, with some people disagreeing
even about the direction of the energy flow (Gough
1982). Besides some well known physicists-like
Feynman (Feynman er a1 1963), Eyges (1972) and
Beketi (Bekefi and Barret 1977wonfess their perplex-
ity when the interpretation of S as a local flux of
Resumen. Se hace una revision del problema de la
interpretacion fisica del tmrema de Poynting y se
comparan dos tipicas deducciones de CI. Una de e m s usa
el trabajo hecho sabre una c a r s por el campo
electromagnetico exlerno, mientras que la otra considera
el trabajo hecho par el campo rorol, que e6 el extern0 mas
el auto-campa Aunqge esta deducci6n es
matematicamente consistente, conduce a diliciles
problemas de interpretacih
energy is taken seriously in stationary situations, as
when we have a point charge and a magnet at rest.
Much work has been done is the assignment of
energy, linear and angular momentum to the
electromagnetic field as a physical system. In general
it seem that the ascription to the electromagnetic field
of these mechanical attributes can he done in a way
that is consistent with the usual interpretation of
Poynting's vector even in static situations (Feynman
e l a1 1963, Romer 1966, 1967, Pugh and Pugh 1967,
Pugh 1971, Corinaldesi 1980, Lambardi 1983, Sharma
1988). However, the arguments used relate changes in
static global configurations of charges and fields, thus
again leaving room for perplexity when the local flux
of miigy is takin as a iiiizpoi: of energy cien i i i
stationary situations. Therefore the controversy persits
even today when S is interpreted as a local flux of
energy.
Although much less discussed in the literature,
another controversial point refers to the interpretation
of the right-hand side of equation ( I ) . What is the
meaning of E? Is it the external field, i.e. the field
related to charges and currents outside the region of
interest, or is it the roral field, the external field plus
the field produced by charges and currents inside our
region?
These are not mere linguistic difficulties and we find
old and recent texts that caution us that Poynting's
vector 'cannot, except in special cases, he identified
with the energy transport vector' (Wilson 1940) and
that 'It may not yield the correct energy flux at every
given point' (Hauser 1971).
Since a revision of the derivations could he a good
way to clarify this issue, we analyse two derivations of
Poynting's theorem that difkr in their interpretations
of the field E. We will show that although they form-
118 I CamDos and J L Jimbnez
ally lead to the same continuity equation, these
derivations are not equivalent.
2. Some general remarks on classical
electrodynamlcs
As a field theory, classical (microscopic) electro-
dynamics constitutes a hyperbolic system of partial
differential equations. These equations describe the
evolution of the electromagnetic field if the charge-
current distribution is given.
In other words, the field equations '. , , determine
the development of the field in the course of time if the
initial field as well as the distribution of charges at all
times are known' (Bergman 1962). On the other hand,
the ponderomotive effect of the electromagnetic field
on test point charges is given bv the Lorentz force law.
+
F = q(h U x B). Thisforce iaw .determines the
I':.
acceleration of a particle in the presence of a given
'incident field', (the [finite]diKerence between the total
field and the 'self-field')"' (Bergman 1962). The
incident or external field has no singularity at the
location of the particle on which it acts, while in the
case of a (finite) point charge the self-field is infinite at
the location of the charge.
The separation of the total field into an incident or
external field and a self-field is related to the 'source
hypothesis', that is, to the assumption that the
charged bodies are the sources of the electromagnetic
field. However, ' . . . the source hypothesis is an extra
assumption: as our axiom system shows, fields and
currents are conjoined but not causally associated:
only field changes are causally associated with
charged bodies, in case there are any in the region
considered' (Bunge 1967).
Classical electrodynamics considers then two types
of entities, charged particles and fields, but their
interaction can only be oartiallv analvsed. since either
thedistnbution ofiharies andcurreit is known and
then we can denve the evolution of the field. or an
e x t m " field acting o n thc particles is given and then
we can find the motion of the particles. This dualistic
nature of classical electrodynamics has provoked such
a discomfort since long ago (Pauli 1Y73). that alterna-
tive theories have been proposed (Einstein 1976.
Hoyle and Narlikar 1974).
The interation of charges and fields is then
described by the (microscopic) Maxwell equations
and the Lorentz force law. If the trajectories of the
charges in the region of interest are known, then what
rcmams IS only the mathematical problem of solving
an inhomogeneous system of differential equation,.
As is well known, the general solution is the sum of
the general solution of !he homogenous system (uith
all the charges equated to zero) plus a particular
solution of the inhomogeneous system.
This is not all. since a unique and stable solution
further requires the imposition of initial and boundary
iUlidlilUlij Gil ihr IreiGj. w e ira,e iiicn ai i . \ C i j pxii:
in our region the total fields E = E ' + E h and
B = B' + Bh, where i and h stand respectively for
inhomogeneous and homogeneous.
An important question is the relationship that these
fields hear to the external field and to the se(ffield, a
distinction that it is necessary lo make for the inter-
pretation of the action of the field on a point charge.
Since the external field is not singular at the location
of a (finite) point charge, it must be a homogeneous
solution. However, the definition of the self-field is a
delicate problem that involves additional postulates
and cannot he done in general (Bergman 1962). This
is an important theoretical problem that must he
solved 6efore appealing to any measurement. As
Einstein once explained to Heisenberg (Heisenherg
1990), 'whether you can observe a thing or not
depends on the theory you use; it is the theory which
decides what can be observed'. Since the self-field is
singular at the location of a finite point charge, it must
he the inhomogeneous field or part of it. Usually it is
taken as the velocity-dependent inhomogeneous field,
also called the convected or hound field (Wilson
1936), in contrast with the acceleration-dependent
part (identified as a eadiation field) which eventually
becomes detached from the charge.
Some authors (Goedecke 1975) take the self-fieldas
the whole inhomogeneous field, but in the case of a
charge moving with constant velocity this ambiguity
does not appear.
The problem of disentangling the self-field from the
total field has been treated in several ways, the best
known being that proposed by Dirac (1938) and later
extended by Teitelboim el a1 (1980). Essentially this
consists in defining the self-field on a spacelike hyper-
surface orthogonal to the worldline of the particle. In
this manner the infinite energy associated with the
self-field can he renormalized covariantly. In spite of
its advantages, this treatment was meant by Dirac
only as a phenomenological theory, useful to calculate
dl1 the result( that Cdn be ohtained from expcnment.
but inthi,own%ordi, he wasnevercompletely sitiqfied
with this 'subtraction physics'.
Besides the problem of defining unambiguously the
self-field, one has also the problem of determining the
action of this field on the charged particle. Usually
this action is taken as given by the same Lorentz law
hut this is an additional postulate that may be wrong
(Bunge 1967). In fact, the problem of the interaction
of a charged particle with its self-field leads to well
known difficulties in the characterization of the
radiation reaction (Jimenez and Campos 1987).
With these remarks in mind, we now analyse two
different derivations of Poynting's theorem and the
problems of interpretation posed by them.
3. Derlvations 01 Poyntlng's theorem
The hest known derivation appears in Jackson's text
:!9?5:. U- k g i x byca-!ca!aticg !he p w e r !ransfxed
 About Poynting's theorem
to a charge by an external field through the Lorentz
force:
JW
-=
Ji q(Eh + w x B h ) . w = p .~h
where we have used the superscript h to recall that
the extemal field is a solution of the homogeneous
equations.
This energy is transferred from the external field to
the particle and it may appear as kinetic energy
or other forms of energy. This is consistent with
Newtonian mechanics that demands that only exter-
nal forces may change the energy of a particle.
The next step is to eliminate the current j = qn from
the last equation. We take it from the Ampere-
Maxwell law,
dE'
V x P=p++-++j. (3)
ai
Here the complete fields appear, since they are the
general so!utions of the inhomogeneous cquatioxs.
Hence, in substituting j from the Ampere-Maxwell
law, we introduce the self-field into the derivation.
Then we have
This equation can be transformed using the vector
identity
V . ( E hx E ) = E . V x Eh- E h . V x B' ( 5 )
and Faraday's law, obtaining
This mixture of homogeneous and complete fields
prevents the simplification usually done when this
distinction is neglected. In order to arrive at the final
result, it is necessary to make a risky move: to discard
the inhomogeneous part of the complete fields. By
doing this one obtains
The last two terms on the right-hand side can be
written as
J l I
--(-(Bh)'
ai2
+ +(Eh)') =ad
T (8)
defining in this way an energy density uh for the
homogeneous or extemal fields.
The corresponding Poynting vector for these fields
119
is defined as
1
S=-(EhxBh) (9)
k
and one finally gets
- j . E h = V . A " + za.d
(10)
As we have shown, Jackson's derivation of Poynt-
ing's theorem is not completely clean. The inter-
pretation ofequation (IO) as an energy balance would
require that the energy of the external field diminishes
on acting on a charge and giving rise to the current
j = qw. This would be the case, for example, for an
electron accelerating in the TV tube. However, the
energy balance (IO) does not take into account the
possible transference of energy to the self-field of
the charge.
The second type of denvation of Poynting's theorem
is based only on Maxwell's equations, and involves
therefore the work done on a charge by rhe roialfields.
We are going lo write these fields without any
superscripts.
Formally this derivation is logically consistent, but
the presence of self-fieldsbrings complex problems of
interpretation.
The derivation is a formal transformation of
Maxwell's equations (Good and Nelson 1971). It
begins by multiplying by E the Ampere-Maxwell law:
JE
=j . E + E ~ E-.
7%
Using again the identity for the divergence of a
cross-prodoc! and Filrilday's !ay, 2nd fo!!owing thc
same steps as before, we obtain
V . (E x %)+ ;(&BZ + * + E ') = -j. E. (12)
Identifying S a n d U as the Poynting vector and the
energy density for the total fields, we obtain Poynting's
theorem, equation ( I ) . Though seemingly the same
continuity equation results, it is important to note
that equations (7) and (12) are different, the latter
involving the total fields, while the former refers only
to the external fields.
Since in this derivation the total fields have been
introduced, we need to interpret the term -j E = .
- j ' (E" + E""). Usually this term is interpreted as
the power developed by the total fields. This amounts
to postulating that in the Lorentz force law it is
legitimate to put in the total fields, not just the external
fields, but this would be a daring assertion. Experience
guarantees the Lorentz force only for external fields
(Bunge 1967) and the introduction of the total fields
raises several questions. Can the self-fieldsdo work on
120 I Campos and J L Jimenez
the charge? An affirmative answer would mean that a
charge can accelerate itself through the action of its
self-field, in contradiction with experience. On the
other hand, if the self-field can do work on a
charge only in the presence of an external field, what
fraction of the work is attributable to the self-field
and how much to the external field? These are open
questions that present-day electrodynamics is far
from answering.
With regard to the meaning o f j in the term E . j , we
have implied that it is as if j = p, thus remaining
within the scope of microscopic electrodynamics. As
mentioned in the introduction, we still have the
problem that the electromagnetic momentum derived
from Poynting's vector and the electrostatic self-
energy of a point charge, do not form a 4-vector. This
is because the 4-divergence of the electromagnetic
stress-energy tensor is not zero.
Two approaches have been proposed lo overcome
this problem. One consists in introducing Poincart
stresses to have a truly closed system, thus imposing
formally the conversation of toro1 energy-momentum,
i.e. electromagnetic plus non-electromagnetic. The
other point of view proposed the redefinition of
the electromagnetic momentum of a point charge,
modifying the momentum given by Poynling's vector.
In fact it has been argued (Rohrlich 1970) that
Poynting's vector defines correctly the electromagnetic
momentum only for zero rest mass systems, i.e. radi-
ation, while the presence of a point charge with rest
mass greater than zero requires a different definition
such that the rest energy and the redefined momentum
consitute a 4-vector.
The case of a conduction current in the term E .j,
as used in many texts to illustrate an application of
Poynting's theorem, would take us into the domain of
macrosenpic electrodynamics. The analysis of such an
application deserves a separate and careful treatment,
and we just mention the existence of a conduction
current requires a non-electromagnetic source of
energy. This is apparent from the need to introduce a
+
generalization of Ohm's law: j = u(E Fe"),where
F'" is an electromotive force of non-electromagnetic
nature (mechanical, chemical, etc) that produces a
known motion of charges, the so-called 'external
current'y =OF".
In this way the Ampere-Maxwell law becomes
B aE
V x -=E+-
~b ar
+uE+y
This equation yields the telegrapher equation
instead of the usual wave equation. As we can see, a
cogent application of the energy conservation law
requires the consideration of a closed system that
includes the electromagnetic system as part of it.
4. Concluding remarks
The '--i!deT.-en: :ha: coxies from int.rpreti!!g
Poynting's theorem as the local energy conservation
law and Poynting's vector as a local transport of
energy, has led us to analyse two types of derivation
of this theorem. The derivation based on the work
done on a charge by an external field is not satisfactory
because it introduces a mixture of external and total
fields. An interpretation of this version of the theorem
as a transfer of energy from the external field to the
charge is possible only if the self-field is ignored, as
implicitly done in the textbooks.
The other version of the theorem amounts to a
formal transformation of Maxwell's equations. It is
logically consistent but by introducing the self-field
poses challenging problems that compel us to look
beyond present-day electrodynamics.
Then the physical meaning of Poynting's theorem
would be clear cut only in regions free of charges,
giving a satisfactory picture in the case of a plane
wave. However, the theorem should be used with care
in the presence of charges. Besides we may add that
any prescribed current, microscopic or macroscopic,
requires the intervention of non-electromagnetic
forces. Then we may conclude that a system of
electromagnetic fields and charges is usually not a
closed system. More than that, in the case of the
electron nobody knows which fields may close thc
system. As an alternative approach, Dirac's theory
treats the electron as a true singularity. Other alterna-
tives include non-linear field theories (Einstein 1976)
and relativistic action-at-a-distance theories (Wheeler
and Feynman 1949, Hoyle and Narkilar 1974). All
these represent valuable efforts in the long struggle to
understand the structure of matter.
Acknowledgements
We want to express our gratitude to Professor D
Moreno for his critical comments on this work and to
Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana, Iztapalapa,
for its hospitality
References
Bergman P G 1962 Basic Theories of Physics (New York:
Dover) pp 266, 177, 196
Lkkefi G and Barrel A H 1977 Elecrromognelic Vibraions,
W o w and Rodiarion (Cambridge, MI:MIT Press) pp
236-8
~~ ~
Bunge M 1967 Foundorions o/Physics (Berlin: Springer)
pp 173, 165, 174-5
Campos I and Jimenez 1 L 1986 Phys. Rev. D 33 607-10
Corinaldesi E 1980 Am. J . Phys. 40 8 3 4
Dirac P A M 1938 Proe. R . Soc. A 167 148-69
Einstein A 1976 The Meaning of Reloiiviry (London:
Chapman and Hal!) p I57
Eyges L 1972 The CIpssical Eleerromognelic Field
(Reading: Addison-Wesley)pp 200-3
Feynman R P Lcighton 8 and Sands M 1963 The
Feynman Leerures on Physics Val 2 (Reading. Addison-
Wes!ey) pp 2 7 4 !U 27-8, !?A
 About Poynting's theorem
Goedecke G H 1975 Nuovo Cimenfo B 28 22543
Good R H and Nelson T J 1971 Clarsieol Theory of
Eleerric and Magnetic Fie/& m e w York: Academic)
PP 264-5
w
G O U ~ ~1982 E,,,.J. m y S . 3 83-7
Hauser W 1971 Introduction l o the Principles of
Electromaewrirm (Reading: Addison-Weslev) I) 399
Heisenberg % 1990 b l f r c a f t & of Fundnmenl~l~orces
ed
A Salam (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) p 99
Hoyle F and Narlikar J V 1974 Acfion ai a Distance in
Physics and Cosmology (San Francisco: Freemanj
Jackson J D 1975 Clossicol Electrodynamics 2nd edn
(New York Wiley) pp 236-7
Jimbnez I L and Campos I 1987 Am. J . Phys. 55 1017-23
Kobe D H 1982 Am. J . Phys. M 1162-3
hi C S 1981 Am. J . Phys. 49 841-3
Lombardi G G 1983 Am. J . Phys. 51 2 1 3 4
Pauli W 1973 Pauli Lectures on Physics Vol I
View publication stats
121
(Cambridge, MI: MIT Press) pp 2-3
Peten P C 1982 Am. J . Phys. 50 1165-6
Pugh E M and Pugh G F 1967 Am. J. Phys. 35 153-6
Pugh E M 1971 Am. J . P h p . 39 837-8
Rahrlich F 1970 Am. J . Phys. 38 1310-6
Romer R H 1966 Am. J. Phys. 34 772-8
-1967 Am. J. Phys. 35 44-6
-1982 Am. J. Phys. 50 11668
Sharma N L 1988 Am. J . Phys. 56 420-3
Slepian J 1942 J . Appl. Phys. 13 512-8
_ielteibaim
.
C Viiiarroei D and van weert Ch 0 i9uu Rip.
Nuovo Cimenro 3 (9) 1-63
Wheeler J A and Feynman R P 1949 Rev. Mod. Phys. 21
425-33
Wilson W 1936 Proc. Phys. Soc. 48 736-40
-1940 Theoretical Physics Vol 3 (London: Methuen)
P 53