1
$\begingroup$

Is electromagnetic radiation flux (measured in watts per square metre) an extensive or intensive property? Can the fluxes from two sources be somehow combined at a target and what are the rules?

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ From my understanding, "intensive" and "extensive" are used to describe properties of matter. Electromagnetic radiation isn't matter. $\endgroup$
    – user113773
    Commented Mar 1, 2019 at 5:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If there were two Suns in the sky, the average solar flux at the Earth would double: twice as many watts per square meter. $\endgroup$
    – G. Smith
    Commented Mar 1, 2019 at 6:07
  • $\begingroup$ Smith, I believe your wrong, check my answer :) $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 16, 2022 at 22:16

2 Answers 2

2
$\begingroup$

Yes, in most cases that you would come across the radiation flux from two sources (e.g. two light bulbs, two stars, two car headlights) can just be added together to get the total radiation flux.

That is because most sources of light are sources of incoherent radiation. The light arises from multiple microscopic sources at multiple locations that have no fixed phase relationship, even on extremely short timescales.

The exception would be where you try to add together two sources of light that are coherent and have a fixed phase relationship - for example two laser beams that originate from the same parent beam. In such cases you need to add the amplitudes of the component electric and magnetic fields together before calculating the resultant Poynting vector and flux.

See https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/61323/43351

Details:

For the case of two coherent sources with a fixed phase relationship between their electromagnetic fields (e.g., a pair of lasers with identical frequencies, or one laser and a beam splitter), it is straightforward to show that the summed Poynting vector $$\vec{S} = \vec{E_1} \times \vec{H_1} + \vec{E_2} \times \vec{H_2} + \vec{E_1} \times \vec{H_2} + \vec{E_2} \times \vec{H_1}$$ $$\vec{S} = \vec{S_1} + \vec{S_2} + \vec{E_1} \times \vec{H_2} + \vec{E_2} \times \vec{H_1}\ .$$ If there is a fixed phase relationship between wave 1 and wave 2, then the time-average (which is what is measured by any "flux detector") of the "crossed terms" is not necessarily zero and could be positive or negative. This is just constructive or destructive interference.

If there is no fixed phase relationship between the two sources, which is the case for every-day light sources or light coming from different points on a macroscopic source of radiation, then the crossed terms will have the form (assuming the waves are travelling along the z-axis in vacuum) $$\vec{E_1} \times \vec{H_2} + \vec{E_2} \times \vec{H_1} = \frac{2E_1 E_2}{\mu_0 c} \sin(\omega t)\sin(\omega t + \phi)\ \hat{z}, $$ where $\phi$ is a random, time-varying phase difference. The time-average of this is zero, so $$ \langle S \rangle = \langle S_1 \rangle + \langle S_2 \rangle$$ and the flux measured is the summed flux from the two sources.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Can you explain why incoherence means that $$\vec{E}_{1}× \vec{B}_{2} + \vec{E}_{2} × \vec{B}_{1} =0$$ Which is the conditions for $$\vec{S}_{1+2} = \vec{S}_{1} + \vec{S}_{2}$$ $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 30, 2022 at 16:20
  • $\begingroup$ @jensenpaull Why would its time-average be non-zero if there is no fixed phase relationship between $E_1$ and $E_2$ ? Note that the relevant relationship here is that $<S_{1+2}> = <S_1> + <S_2>$. $\endgroup$
    – ProfRob
    Commented Jul 30, 2022 at 16:34
-1
$\begingroup$

They CANNOT be added. As consider 2 sources , producing 2 "independant" E and B fields.

$\vec{S_{1}} = \frac{1}{\mu_0}\vec{E_{1}}×\vec{B_{1}}$

$\vec{S_{2}} = \frac{1}{\mu_0}\vec{E_{2}}×\vec{B_{2}}$,

$\vec{S_{1}} + \vec{S_{2}}$

Does not equal:

$\vec{S}_{1+2}=\frac{1}{\mu_0}(\vec{E_{1}}+\vec{E_{2}})×(\vec{B_{1}}+\vec{B_{2}})$

There are cross terms when considering the total Poynting vector as a result of 2 different E and B fields, that are not present if we just "add" the poynting vector of them up individually.

Doubling the E and B field, would NOT double the power.

$\endgroup$
11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think there's some discussion of coherence and expectation required here. If the sources are not coherent then the expected values of the cross terms would go to zero? $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 17, 2022 at 15:48
  • $\begingroup$ This is an extremely interesting answer that has huge implications in other areas. I would like to continue the discussion offline. I have just a couple of questions / observations; please contact me at [email protected] (a hide-my-email from Apple). Thanks, johnM $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 11, 2022 at 5:30
  • $\begingroup$ Why the down vote? $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 30, 2022 at 9:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Because it isn't the correct answer to the question asked. Radiation flux can be combined by simple addition and $S_{1+2} = S_1 + S_2$, except in cases where you are trying to combine the light from two coherent light sources. G.Smith's comment that you disagreed with, is correct. $\endgroup$
    – ProfRob
    Commented Jul 30, 2022 at 14:26
  • $\begingroup$ Jensen Paull's answer is correct. Not only that, from a simple (but not so crude) home experiment, it appears that if you have two sources and one target: If Source A produces Ta at the target, Source B produces Tb at the target, then with both sources on, the target becomes Ta or Tb whichever is the greater. Adding fluxes together creates temperature which are much too high. I'll be happy to post my two-page description somewhere is there is a need. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 1, 2022 at 7:19

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.